Bacillus isolates and methods of their use to protect against plant pathogens and virus transmission

ABSTRACT

Methods of inducing systemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant are provided. The methods comprise applying a composition comprising a  Bacillus  control agent to said plant wherein said plant is capable of producing defense proteins. Also provided are, methods for controlling one or more plant diseases, methods for preventing plant virus transmission, methods for preventing and/or treating soil-borne plant pathogens using the  Bacillus  control agent of the present invention, and methods of generating bacterial spores. In addition, synergistic biocontrol combinations and methods of using the same are provided.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to, and is a continuation-in-part ofU.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/557,975 filed on Sep. 11, 2009, nowU.S. Pat. No. 8,025,875, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/361,283 filed on Feb. 24, 2006 now abandoned,each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety forall purposes.

GOVERNMENT RIGHTS STATEMENT

This invention was made with government support under grant number2001-35316-11109 awarded by United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)/CSREES, and under grant number 2005-33610-16085 awarded by USDA.The government has certain rights in the invention.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention generally relates to methods of inducing pathogenresistance in plants, such as inducing systemic acquired resistance toinfection in plants. In one aspect, this invention relates to methods ofinducing systemic acquired resistance to infection in plants comprisingapplying a Bacillus control agent comprising Bacillus mojavensis isolate203-7 and/or Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ to one or more plants. Thepresent invention also relates to the field of bacterial sporeproduction for biopesticides. In one aspect, the present inventionrelates to novel methods of generating Bacillus spores.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Effective biological control of plant diseases with epiphytic microbeshas been documented for numerous phyllosphere- andrhizosphere-inhabiting organisms. Foliar biological control agentsinclude yeast and filamentous fungi (see Hofstein R and A. Chapple,“Commercial development of biofungicides,” Biopesticides: Use andDelivery (Hall F R, Menn J J, eds.), Totowa: Humana Press (1999); andSutton, J. C. and G. Peng, “Manipulation and vectoring of biocontrolorganisms to manage foliage and fruit diseases in cropping systems,”Annual Review of Phytopathology, 31:473-493 (1993)) as well as bacteria;including both gram (−) species such as Erwinia sp. and Pseudomonas sp.(see Andrews, J. H., “Biological control in the phyllosphere,” AnnualReview of Phytopathology, 30:603-635 (1992)), and gram (+) organismssuch as Bacillus sp. See Kokalis-Burelle, N., P. A. Backman, RRodriquez-Kabana, and L. D. Ploper, “Potential for biological control ofearly leafspot of peanut using Bacillus cereus and chitin as foliaramendments,” Biological Control, 2:321-328 (1992). Biological controlagents applied to the rhizosphere include Pseudomonads (see Alstrom, S.,“Induction of disease resistance in common bean susceptible to haloblight bacterial pathogen after seed bacterisation with rhizospherepseudomonads,” Journal of Genetic and Applied Microbiology, 37:495-501(1991); van Peer, R, G. J. Niemann, and B. Schippers, “Inducedresistance and phytoalexin accumulation in biological control offusarium wilt of carnation by Pseudomonasa sp. strain WCS417r,”Phytopathology, 81:728-734 (1991); and van Loon L. C. and C. M. J.Pieterse, “Biological control agents in signaling resistance,”Biological Control of Crop Diseases (Gnanamanickan S S, ed.), New York:Mercel Dekker, Inc, 486 (2002)) as well as Bacillus sp. (see Zhang, S.,M. S. Reddy, N. Kokalis-Burelle, L. W. Wells, S. P. Nightengale, and J.W. Kloepper, “Lack of induced systemic resistance in peanut to late leafspot disease by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and chemicalelicitors,” Plant Disease, 85(8):879-884 (2001); and Murphy, J. F., G.W. Zehnder, D. J. Schuster, E. J. Sikora, J. E. Polston, and J. W.Kloepper, “Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial mediated protection intomato against Tomato mottle virus,” Plant Disease, 84(7):779-784(2000)) that are classically referred to as plant growth-promotingrhizobacteria. For the most part biological disease control isattributed to direct antagonism against the pathogen via production ofantibiotics or hydrolytic enzymes, or through competition for nutrients.See Weller. D. M., “Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens inthe rhizosphere with bacteria.” Annual Review of Phytopathology.26:379-407 (1988). However, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria andrhizosphere inhabiting fungi have been shown to stimulate the inductionof systemic resistance responses within the plant. See van Peer. R. G.J. Niemann. and B. Schippers, “Induced resistance and phytoalexinaccumulation in biological control of fusarium wilt of carnation byPseudomonasa sp. strain WCS417r.” Phytopathology, 81:728-734. (1991);Wei. G. J. W. Kloepper. and S. Tuzun, “Induction of systemic resistanceof cucumber to Colletotrichum orbiculare by select strains of plantgrowth-promoting rhizobacteria,” Phytopathology, 81:1508-1512 (1991);van Loon, L. C. and C. M. J. Pieterse, “Biological control agents insignaling resistance.” Biological Control of Crop Diseases(Gnanamanickan. S. S., ed.). New York: Mercel Dekker, Inc. 486 (2002).All publications mentioned above are incorporated herein by reference intheir entireties for all purposes.

Systemic induced resistance (SIR) has been described in many plantsystems, most notably tobacco, bean, tomato, cucumber, and Arabidopsisthaliana. See Ross, A F., “Localized acquired resistance to plant virusinfection in hypersensitive hosts,” Virology, 14:329-339 (1961); Kuc,J., “Induced immunity to plant disease,” BioScience, 32:854-860 (1982);Ryals, J. A., U. H. Neuenschwander, M. G. Willits, A. Molina, H. Y.Steiner, and M. D. Hunt, “Systemic acquired resistance,” The Plant Cell.8:1809-1819 (1996); and van Loon, L. C. and C. M. J. Pieterse,“Biological control agents in signaling resistance.” Biological Controlof Crop Diseases (Gnanamanickan. S. S., ed.). New York: Mercel Dekker,Inc. 486 (2002). The broad-spectrum resistance makes an otherwisesusceptible plant resistant to a wide array of subsequent pathogenattacks. See Kuc, J. “Induced immunity to plant disease,” BioScience,32:854-860 (1982); and Hutcheson, S. W., “Current concepts of “activedefense in plants.” Annual Review of Phytopathology, 36:59-90 (1998).Elicitation of systemic disease resistance in plants has thus far beenachieved through treatment by three types of stimuli: necrotizingpathogens (see Pieterse, C. M. J., S. C. M. van Wees. E. Hoffland, J. A.van Pelt, and L. C. van Loon, “Systemic resistance in Arabidopsisinduced by biocontrol bacteria is independent of salicylic acidaccumulation and pathogenesis-related gene expression,” The Plant Cell,8:1225-1237 (1996); Ross, AF., “Localized acquired resistance to plantvirus infection in hypersensitive hosts,” Virology, 14:329-339 (1961);Ross. AF., “Systemic acquired resistance induced by localized virusinfection in plants,” Virology. 14:340-358 (1961); and Kuc, J., “Inducedimmunity to plant disease.” BioScience. 32:854-860 (1982)), secondarysignal molecules (Le. salicylic acid, SA) (see White, R. F.,“Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) induces resistance to tobacco mosaicvirus in tobacco,” Virology. 99:410-412 (1979)) and their functionalanalogs (e.g. 2,6 dichloroisonicotinic acid, INA (see Metraux, J. P., P.Ahl-Goy, T. Staub, J. Speich, A Steinemann, J. Ryals, and E. Ward,“Induced resistance in cucumber in response to 2,6-dichloroisonicotinicacid and pathogens,” Advances in Molecular Genetics of Plant-MicrobeInteractions, Vol. 1. (H. Hennecke, D. P. S. Verma, eds.), Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 432-439 (1991)) and acibenzolar-5-methyl.ASM (see Tally, A, M. Oostendorp, K. Lawton, T. Staub, and B. Bassi,“Commercial development of elicitors of induced resistance topathogens,” Induced Plant Defenses Against Pathogens and Herbivores (AAAgrawal, S. Tuzun, and E. Bent, eds.) St. Paul: APS Press, 299-318(1999)), and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria introduction into therhizosphere. See Alstrom, S., “Induction of disease resistance in commonbean susceptible to halo blight bacterial pathogen after seedbacterisation with rhizosphere pseudomonads,” Journal of Genetic andApplied Microbiology, 37:495-501 (1991); van Loon, L. C. and C. M. J.Pieterse, “Biological control agents in signaling resistance,”Biological Control of Crop Diseases (Gnanamanickan, S. S., ed.), NewYork: Mercel Dekker, Inc, 486 (2002); Wei, G., J. W. Kloepper, and S.Tuzun, “Induction of systemic resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichuniorbiculare by select strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria,”Phytopathology, 81:1508-1512 (1991); Zhang, S., M. S. Reddy, N.Kokalis-Burelle, L. W. Wells, S. P. Nightengale, and J. W. Kloepper,“Lack of induced systemic resistance in peanut to late leaf spot diseaseby plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and chemical elicitors,” PlantDisease, 85(8):879-884 (2001); and Murphy, J. F., G. W. Zehnder, D. J.Schuster, E. J. Sikora, J. E. Polston, and J. W. Kloepper, “Plantgrowth-promoting rhizobacterial mediated protection in tomato againstTomato mottle virus,” Plant Disease, 84(7):779-784 (2000). Additionally,oomycete and fungal hyphal wall fragments (see Doke, N., “Generation ofsuperoxide anion by potato tuber protoplasts during the hypersensitiveresponse to hyphal wall components of Phytophthora infestans andspecific inhibition of the reaction by suppressors of hypersensitivity,”Physiological Plant Pathology, 23:359-367 (1983); and Anderson, A. J.,“Studies on the structure and elicitor activity of fungal glucans,”Canadian Journal of Botany, 58:2343-2348 (1980)), bacterial cell wallfractions (lipopolysaccharides) (see Sequeira, L., “Mechanisms ofinduced resistance in plants,” Annual Review of Microbiology, 37:51-79(1983), and phytohormones (see Cohen, Y., M. Reuveni, and A. Baider,“Local and systemic activity of BABA (DL-3-aminobutyric acid), againstPlasmopara viticola in grapevines,” European Journal of Plant Pathology,105(4):351-361 (1999); Oka, Y., Y. Cohen, and Y. Spiegel, “Local andsystemic induced resistance to the root-knot nematode in tomato byDL-beta-amino-n-butyric acid,” Phytopathology, 89(12):1138-1143 (1999);and Cohen, Y. R., “Aminobutyric acid-Induced Resistance Against PlantPathogens,” Plant Disease, 86(5):448-457 (2002)) have SIR-displayedinduction capability. All publications mentioned above are incorporatedherein by reference in their entireties for all purposes.

Two systemic resistance pathways have been described: 1) systemicacquired resistance, which utilizes salicylic acid as a secondary signalmolecule and leads to the production of pathogenesis-related (PR)proteins (see Delaney, T. P., “Genetic Dissection of Acquired Resistanceto Disease,” Plant. Physiology, 113:5-12 (1997)) and 2) induced systemicresistance, which utilizes jasmonates and ethylene as secondary signalmolecules and controls disease independently of PR-protein production(see Pieterse, C. M. J., S. C. M. van Wees, J. A. van Pelt, M. Knoester,R. Laan, H. Gerrits, P. J. Weisbeek, and L. C. van Loon, “A NovelSignaling Pathway Controlling Induced Systemic Resistance inArabidopsis,” The Plant Cell, 10:1571-1580 (1998)). All publicationsmentioned above are incorporated herein by reference in their entiretiesfor all purposes.

Systemic resistance results in the activation of defenses in uninfectedparts of the plant. As a result, the entire plant is more resistant toinfection. The systemic resistance is long lasting and often confersbroad-based resistance to different pathogens.

One of the issues surrounding systemic resistance is the occurrence ofnecrotic cell death at the site of application of the agent that inducessystemic resistance.

Increased societal concerns related to the use of agrichemicals andgenetically modified organisms as a means of managing crop diseases hasprompted interest in methods of biological control. A biological controlagent capable of inducing systemic resistance would provide a method ofincreasing disease resistance in a plant without the use ofagrichemicals. Of particular interest would be a biological controlagent capable of inducing systemic resistance without inducing necroticcell death.

Thus, a need exists for new biological control agents capable ofinducing systemic induced resistance in plants. A need also exists fornew methods of identifying new biological control agents capable ofinducing systemic resistance in plants.

Bacillus spores can potentially be used as biocontrol agents forsuppressing various plant diseases. See, e.g., Emmert E A B, HandelsmanJ (1999) Biocontrol of plant disease-a (Gram-) positive perspective.FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 171:1-9; Shoda M (2000) Bacterial control of plantdiseases. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 89:515-521; Montesinos E (2003)Development, registration and commercialization of microbial pesticidesfor plant protection. Int. Microbiol. 6:245-252. Spores are thepreferred form for commercial delivery as spores are more efficient andless expensive to produce and more stable than freeze dried cells. Suchbiocontrol agents are desirable over chemical agents, which are oftenharmful to the environment and to humans. However, the current highcosts of spore production caused by inefficiencies in culturing andfermentation methods have prevented the widespread use of Bacillusspores to control plant disease.

Many attempts have been made to enhance spore yields, particularly withBacillus subtilis cells. See, e.g., Monteiro S (2005) A Procedure forHigh-Yield Spore Production by Bacillus subtilis. Biotechnol. Prog.21:1026-1031; Hageman J H, et al., (1984) Single, chemically definedsporulation medium for Bacillus subtilis growth, sporulation, andextracellular protease production. J. Bacteriol. 160:438-441; Dingman, DW and Stahly, D P (1983) Medium Promoting Sporulation of Bacillus larvaeand Metabolism of Medium Components. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.46(4):860-869; Warriner, K. and Waites, W. M. (1999) EnhancedSporulation in Bacillus subtilis Grown on Medium ContainingGlucose:Ribose. Letters in Applied Microbiology 29:97-102; Chen, Z., etal., (2010) Greater Enhancement of Bacillus subtilis Spore Yields inSubmerged Cultures by Optimization of Medium Composition ThroughStatistical Experimental Designs. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.85:1353-1360. Researchers have also adapted known spore culture methodsin attempts to produce spores of Bacillus mycoides. See, for example,Bowen et al. (Jul. 20, 2002) The Measurement of Bacillus mycoides SporeAdhesion Using Atomic Force Microscopy, Simple Counting Methods, and aSpinning Disk Technique, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 79(2):170-179. However, improved methods for spore production are needed,particularly for other species within the Bacillus genus.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the objects outlined above, the present inventionprovides methods and compositions useful in inducing disease resistanceto infection in a plant, comprising applying a Bacillus control agentcomprising Bacillus mojavensis isolate ‘203-7’ having accession numberNRRL B-30893 and/or Bacillus mycoides isolate ‘BmJ’ having accessionnumber NRRL B-30890 to the plant, wherein the plant is capable ofproducing defense proteins. In one embodiment, the disease resistance toinfection in the plant is systemic acquired resistance. ‘BmJ’ is alsoknown as ‘Bac J.’, Bacillus mycoides isolate J, B. mycoides J, Bacillusmycoides J, or “isolate J”. In another embodiment, the systemic acquiredresistance is induced in the plant through a salicylic acid independentand jasmonic acid dependent pathway. In another embodiment, the systemicacquired resistance is induced by Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ havingaccession number NRRL B-30890 in the plant through an NPR1 dependentpathway. In another embodiment, the systemic acquired resistance isinduced by Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 having accession numberNRRL B-30893 in the plant through an NON-EXPRESSOR OFPATHOGENESIS-RELATED GENES1 (NPR1) independent pathway. In anotherembodiment, the plant is a monocot, for example, the plant is selectedfrom the group consisting of wheat, corn (maize), rice, barley,triticale and lily. In another embodiment, the plant is a dicot, forexample, the plant is selected from the group consisting of banana,cucurbit, pecan, soybean, sunflower, alfalfa, tomato, cucumber,watermelon, potato, pepper, bean, chrysanthemum, and geranium. Inanother embodiment, the infection is caused by any kind of infectious(i.e., biotic) agents that affect plants. Examples of suchagents/pathogens include but are not limited to an agent or pathogenselected from the group consisting of bacteria, fungi, and viruses.Examples of specific pathogens to be treated using the compositions andmethods of the present invention include but are not limited topathogens selected from the group consisting of Mycosphaerellafijiensis, Cladosporium caryigenum, Gloinerella cingulata, Cercosporabeticola, Pseudomonas syringe, Erwinia caratovora, Botrytis cinerea, andFusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae, Alternaria solani, Sclerotiniasclerotiorwn, Alternaria solani, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Xanthomonascampestris, Pythium aphanidermatum, and Podosphora xanthii. In someother embodiments, the disease is associated with plant viruses, forexample, Potato Virus Y, cucumber mosaic virus, tobacco mosaic virus,and squash vein yellowing virus.

The present invention also provides methods of inducing a first systemicacquired resistance in a plant comprising applying a Bacillus controlagent comprising Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 and/or Bacillusmycoides isolate BmJ to the plant, wherein the methods further compriseapplying a second biological or chemical control agent, and wherein thefirst systemic acquired resistance is induced in the plant through asalicylic acid independent and jasmonic acid dependent pathway. In oneembodiment, the first systemic acquired resistance is induced byBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 inthe plant through an NPR1 dependent pathway. In another embodiment, thefirst systemic acquired resistance is induced by Bacillus mojavensisisolate 203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893 in the plant throughan NPR1 independent pathway. In another embodiment, the secondbiological or chemical control agent is selected from the groupconsisting of antifungal agents, antibacterial agents, antiviral agents,and plant activating compounds. The second biological or chemicalcontrol agent may or may not also induce the first systemic acquiredresistance in the plant and/or induce a second systemic acquiredresistance in the plant.

The invention is also directed to methods of screening for biologicalcontrol agents useful in inducing systemic acquired resistance toinfection in a plant.

The present invention, according to one embodiment, is a method ofinducing systemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant. Themethod includes applying to the foliage of the plant a compositioncomprising a Bacillus control agent. The agent is Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 or Bacillus mojavensisisolate 203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893. According to theinvention, the plant is capable of producing defense proteins.

In an alternative embodiment, the present invention is a method ofinducing systemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant. Themethod includes applying to the foliage of said plant a compositioncomprising a Bacillus control agent. The agent is Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 or Bacillus mojavensisisolate 203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893. According to theinvention, the plant does not experience necrotic cell death as a resultof said applying of said Bacillus control agent. According to oneembodiment of the present invention, the infection to which systemicacquired resistance is induced is selected from the group consisting ofbacterial infections, fungal infections, and viral infections.Alternatively, the infection is a Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Blacksigatoka), Cladosporium caryigenum (pecan scab), Glomerella cingulata(Anthracnose) or Cercospora beticola (Cercospora leaf spot) infection.In a further alternative, the infection is a Pseudomonas syringe(angular leaf spot) or Erwinia caratovora (bacterial vascular necrosis)infection. In a further alternative, the infection is Botrytis cinereaor Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae (Fusarium Crown rot). In somefurther embodiments, the plant disease is selected from the groupconsisting of early blight disease (Alternaria solani), white molddisease (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), bacterial spot disease (Xanthomonascampestris), gray mold (Botrytis cinerea), root rotting disease (Pythiumaphanidermatum), and powdery mildew (Podosphora xanthii). In some otherembodiments, the disease is associated with plant viruses, for example,Potato Virus Y, cucumber mosaic virus, tobacco mosaic virus, and squashvein yellowing virus.

In one aspect of the invention, either of the above methods alsoincludes applying a biological or chemical control agent. According toone embodiment, the Bacillus biological control agent is applied inconjunction with the biological or chemical control agent.Alternatively, the Bacillus biological control agent is appliedsequentially with the biological or chemical control agent.

The present invention, in accordance with another embodiment, is a planttreated with a Bacillus control agent selected from the group consistingof Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890and Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 having accession number NRRLB-30893. The agent induces systemic acquired resistance in said plant.According to this embodiment, the plant does not experience necroticcell death as a result of said treating with said Bacillus control agentand the plant is a dicot plant or a monocot plant. For example, theplant is a Solanaceae species, such as potatoes, tomatoes, peppers,tobaccos, etc; an ornamental plant, such as Geranium plants; or aCucurbitaceae species, such as cucumbers, squashes, watermelons,cantaloupes, etc. In some embodiments, Solanaceae species is a potato ora tomato; the Cucurbitaceae species is a Cucumis melon, a squash or acucumber; and the ornamental plant is a Geranium species. According toanother embodiment, the present invention is a method of screening for aBacillus control agent that induces systemic resistance in a plant. Themethod includes contacting a plant sample with said Bacillus controlagent and detecting a property selected from the group consisting of therelease of active oxygen species (AOS), chitinase activity and B1,3glucanase activity.

In accordance with another aspect, the present invention is acomposition for imparting systemic disease resistance in a plant capableof producing defense proteins. The composition includes a Bacilluscontrol agent selected from the group consisting of Bacillus mycoidesisolate

BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 and Bacillus mojavensis isolate203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893. Further, the plant iscapable of producing defense proteins. This composition can alsoalternatively include a carrier substance, a biological control agent,and/or a chemical control agent. According to one embodiment, thecomposition is a solution.

In another embodiment, the present invention is a method of inducingsystemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant. The methodincludes causing the phyllosphere of the plant to be colonized with aBacillus control agent selected from the group consisting of Bacillusmycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 and Bacillusmojavensis isolate 203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893. The plantin this method is capable of producing defense proteins.

According to an alternative aspect, the present invention is a method ofenhancing plant growth by conferring systemic acquired resistance to aplant. The method includes applying to the foliage of the plant acomposition comprising a Bacillus control agent selected from the groupconsisting of Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRLB-30890 and Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 having accession numberNRRL B-30893. The plant in this method, is capable of producing defenseproteins.

The present invention, according to an alternative embodiment, is amethod of enhancing plant growth by conferring systemic acquiredresistance to a plant. The method includes causing the phyllosphere ofthe plant to be colonized with a composition comprising a Bacilluscontrol agent selected from the group consisting of Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 and Bacillus mojavensisisolate 203-7 having accession number NRRL B-30893. The plant in thismethod is capable of producing defense proteins.

The present application also provides methods for controlling one ormore plant diseases in a plant or a plant part. In some embodiments, themethods comprise applying a biocontrol agent comprising a Bacillusmycoides isolate or spores thereof to the plant or the plant part. Insome embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides isolate is the Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890. In some embodiments,the one or more plant diseases are selected from the group consisting ofpecan scab disease (Cladosporium caryigenum), Anthracnose disease(Glomerella cingulata), angular leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringe), earlyblight disease (Alternaria solani), white mold disease (Sclerotiniasclerotiorum), bacterial spot disease (Xanthomonas campestris), graymold (Botrytis cinerea), root rotting disease (Pythium aphanidermatum),and powdery mildew (Podosphora xanthii). In some other embodiments, thedisease is associated with plant viruses, for example, Potato Virus Y,cucumber mosaic virus, tobacco mosaic virus, and squash vein yellowingvirus.

In some embodiments, the plant is a dicot plant or a monocot plant. Forexample, the plant is a Solanaceae species, such as potatoes, tomatoes,peppers, tobaccos, etc; an ornamental plant, such as Geranium plants; ora Cucurbitaceae species, such as cucumbers, squashes, watermelons,cantaloupes, pumpkins, etc. In some embodiments, Solanaceae species is apotato or a tomato; the Cucurbitaceae species is a Cucumis melon, asquash or a cucumber; and the ornamental plant is a Geranium species ora Chrysanthemum species.

The present application also provides methods for preventing or reducingvirus infection transmitted by a pathogen transmitter in a plant or aplant part. In some embodiments, the methods comprise applying abiocontrol agent comprising a Bacillus mycoides isolate or sporesthereof to the plant, the plant part, or the soil around the plant. Insome embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides isolate is the Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890. Without wishing to bebound by any theory, the methods prevent virus infection transmitted bythe pathogen transmitter in one or more ways, including but not limitedto, disrupting the normal feeding cycle of the pathogen transmitter;making the plants or plant parts distasteful; repelling the pathogentransmitter from contacting the plants; and restricting the movement ofthe pathogen transmitter. In some embodiments, the pathogen transmitteris an insect or a mite.

In some embodiments, the virus is potato virus Y transmitted by anaphid, or wheat streak mosaic transmitted by a mite. In someembodiments, the aphid is a green peach aphid and the mite is a wheatcurl mite.

The present application also provides methods for inducing diseaseresistance to a pathogen in a plant or a plant part. In someembodiments, the methods comprise applying a biocontrol agent to theplant, the plant part, or soil around the plant. In some embodiments,the methods comprise foliar application of the biocontrol agent to theplant. In some embodiments, the biocontrol agent comprises a Bacillusmycoides isolate or spores thereof. In some embodiments, the Bacillusmycoides isolate is the Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accessionnumber NRRL B-30890. In some embodiments, the pathogen is a soil-borneroot pathogen.

In some embodiments, the soil-borne root pathogen is a Pythium species.For example, the Pythium species is Pythium aphanidermatum.

In some embodiments, the plant is an ornamental plant, for example, aGeranium species or a Chrysanthemum species.

In some embodiments, the foliar application is conducted before, duringor after transplantation.

The present application also provides synergistic combinations forcontrolling one or more plant diseases. In some embodiments, thecombinations comprise a first and one or more second agents, wherein thefirst agent comprises a Bacillus mycoides isolate or spores thereof. Insome embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides isolate is the Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890.

In some embodiments, the second agent can be any agent different fromthe first agent. In some embodiments, the second agent is selected fromthe group consisting of bactericides, fungicides, oomycetecides,insecticides, and anti-virus agents. For example, the second agent is afungicide, such as fungicides comprising one or more strobilurins (e.g.,HEADLINE® (strobilurins)), fungicides comprising manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate (e.g., MANEX® (Manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), fungicides as the same as or similar toManzate® (Mancozeb), fungicides as the same as or similar to SONATA®(Bacillus pumilus), etc. In some embodiments, the plant disease is earlyblight (Alternaria solani) or white mold (Sclerotinia scleroiiorum) andthe second agent is 14, e.g., ENDURA® (boscalid). In some embodiments,the plant disease is associated with a plant virus, for example, a plantvirus transmitted by an insect, and the second agent is an insecticide.In some embodiments, the insecticide is a chemical agent, such aspyrethroid. In some embodiments, the insecticide is a systemicbiocontrol agent, such as ADMIRE®(Imidacloprid). In some embodiments,the insecticide is a biological agent, such as Beauveria bassiana. Insome embodiments, the plant virus is potato virus Y or wheat streakmosaic virus. In some embodiments, the potato virus Y is transmitted byan aphid and the wheat streak mosaic virus is transmitted by a mite. Insome embodiments, the aphid is a green peach aphid and the mite is awheat curl mite.

The present application further provides methods for controlling one ormore plant diseases on a plant or one or more plant parts. In someembodiments, the methods comprise applying the synergistic combinationsof the present application to the plant, the plant parts, or soil aroundthe plant. In some embodiments, plant disease is early blight disease(Alternaria solani), and the second agent is HEADLINE® (strobilurins).In some embodiments, the plant disease is bacterial spot (Xanthomonascampestris), and wherein the second agent is MANEX® (Manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate) or MANZATE® (Mancozeb). In some embodiments,the plant disease is Downey mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis), andwherein the second agent is SONATA® (Bacillus pumilus). In someembodiments, the plant disease is early blight (Alternaria solani) orwhite mold (Sclerotinia scleroiiorum) and the second agent is Boscalid,e.g., ENDURA® (boscalid). In some embodiments, the plant disease isassociated with a plant virus, for example, a plant virus transmitted byan insect, and the second agent is an insecticide. In some embodiments,the insecticide is a chemical agent, such as pyrethroid. In someembodiments, the insecticide is a systemic biocontrol agent, such asADMIRE® (Imidacloprid). In some embodiments, the insecticide is abiological agent, such as Beauveria bassiana. In some embodiments, theplant virus is potato virus Y or wheat streak mosaic virus. In someembodiments, the potato virus Y is transmitted by an aphid and the wheatstreak mosaic virus is transmitted by a mite. In some embodiments, theaphid is a green peach aphid and the mite is a wheat curl mite.

The present invention further provides methods for inducing diseaseresistance in a plant or a plant part against one or more diseaseswithout causing phytotoxicity. In some embodiments, the methods compriseapplying a biocontrol agent comprising a Bacillus mycoides isolate orspores thereof to the plant, the plant part, or the soil around theplant. In some embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides isolate is theBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890. Insome embodiments, the biocontrol agent is applied at 1-100 gram/acrerate with 3×10¹° spores or cells per gram Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJin the biocontrol agent.

The present invention further provides methods for bacterial sporulationin liquid culture. In some embodiments, the methods comprise culturingbacterial cells in a production medium containing no glucose, or verylow concentration of glucose. In one embodiments, the concentration ofglucose in the medium is about 1.5 gram/liter, or less that about 1.5gram/liter, for example, less than about 1.4 gram/liter, less than about1.3 gram/liter, less than about 1.2 gram/liter, less than about 1.1gram/liter, less than about 1.0 gram/liter, less than about 0.9gram/liter, less than about 0.8 gram/liter, less than about 0.7gram/liter, less than about 0.6 gram/liter, less than about 0.5gram/liter, less than about 0.4 gram/liter, less than about 0.3gram/liter, less than about 0.2 gram/liter, less than about 0.1gram/liter, less than about 0.01 gram/liter, less than about 0.001gram/liter, or less.

In some embodiments, the medium can comprise one or more proteinsources. In some embodiments, the protein sources do not containglucose, or contain very low concentration of glucose so that theprotein sources can provide enough amino acid supplies to the bacteriagrowth but do not raise the glucose concentration in the medium morethan about 1.5 gram/liter. Optionally, the medium can comprise one ormore carbon sources that do not contain glucose, or do not raise theglucose concentration in the medium more than about 1.5 gram/liter.

In some embodiments, the methods further comprise removing the resultingbacterial spores from the production medium, drying the bacterialspores, and, optionally, blending the bacterial spores with a carrier.

In some embodiments, the bacterial cells belong to the Bacillus genus.In another embodiment, the bacterial cells belong to the speciesBacillus mycoides. In some embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides is theBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890.

The present invention, in another embodiment, involves a productionmedium containing one or more protein ingredients selected from soybeanmeal, soy flour, soy protein concentrate, soy peptones, protein productsderived from rice, wheat and barley, or combination thereof.

In some embodiments, the production medium has a pH of 5 to 10, forexample, the medium has a pH of 7.0 to 7.2.

In some embodiments, the bacterial cells are removed from the medium bymeans of continuous flow centrifugation or filtration. In oneembodiment, the bacterial spores are dried by means of evaporation.According to another embodiment, the final spore concentration afterdrying is at least 1×10E10 spores per gram, at least 1×10E11 spores pergram, or at least at least 1×10E12 spores per gram.

In another embodiment, the bacterial spores are blended with a carrier,such as attapulgite clay, kaolin-type clay, barden clay, and suitabletypes of oils, that aids in the suspension of the spores in water andprovides a volume of material that is easy to use.

The present invention further provides wettable powder and liquidbiocontrol formulations comprising Bacillus spores. In some embodiments,the formulations comprise Bacillus mycoides spores and one or morecarriers. In some embodiments, the Bacillus mycoides is Bacillusmycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890.

In some embodiments, the dried bacterial spores can be used to makewettable power formulations. For example, the spores can be mixed withwetting agents or emulsifiers (e.g., surfactant). In some embodiments,the wetting agents are soil wetting agents, such as clays. For example,the wetting agent is selected from the group consisting of attapulgiteclay, kaolin-type clays, and Barden clays.

In some embodiments, the liquid biocontrol formulations comprise atleast one carrier that is a solvent-refined light paraffinic distillate,such as the solvent-refined light paraffinic distillate having CAS#64741-89-5. In some embodiments, the solvent-refined light paraffinicdistillate comprising fatty acid alcohol C12-C14. In some furtherembodiments, the fatty acid alcohol C12-C14 is ethoxylated. Thesolvent-refined light paraffinic distillate can be a commerciallyavailable product such as Sunspray 7E (EPA Registration No.00086200008).

In some embodiments, the carrier comprises one or more vegetable oils.For example, the carrier is a methylated vegetable oil. The vegetableoils can be saturated or unsaturated, edible or inedible, include, butare not limited to, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, peanutoil, bean oil, linseed oil, tung oil, and soybean oil. In someembodiments, the carrier is a methylated soybean oil.

In some embodiments, the liquid formulation has a concentration of 1×10⁹spores per ml carrier. The formulation can be further diluted in waterto reach a final concentration of 1×10⁷ spores per ml.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a graphic representation of the relationship betweensystemic resistance and accumulation of salicylic acid (“SA”), accordingto one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 depicts a graphic representation relating to the amount ofrecoverable salicylic acid after extraction, thereby indicating theamount of salicylic acid lost during extraction, according to oneembodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 depicts a graphic representation of the relationship between theaddition of various agents and the activation of NPR1, according to oneembodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4 depicts a schematic representation of a BCA-sugar beetinteraction model, in accordance with one aspect of the presentinvention.

FIG. 5 depicts percent infection of Russet Norkotah potatoes atdifferent times planted at Hermiston, Oreg. Plants were treated eitherwith BmJ at emergence then every 14 days or without treatment. Data arestatistically different at day 71 and day 84@ P<0.05, indicating thatBmJ is effective in controlling Potato Virus Y (PVY) infectiontransmitted by aphid.

FIG. 6 depicts percent infection of PVY transmitted by aphids atdifferent times. Plants were treated with or without BmJ (dead oralive).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

All publications, patents and patent applications, including anydrawings and appendices, herein are incorporated by reference to thesame extent as if each individual publication or patent application wasspecifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.

The following description includes information that may be useful inunderstanding the present invention. It is not an admission that any ofthe information provided herein is prior art or relevant to thepresently claimed inventions, or that any publication specifically orimplicitly referenced is prior art.

DEFINITIONS

As used herein, the verb “comprise” as is used in this description andin the claims and its conjugations is used in its non-limiting sense tomean that items following the word are included, but items notspecifically mentioned are not excluded. In addition, reference to anelement by the indefinite article “a” or “an” does not exclude thepossibility that more than one of the elements are present, unless thecontext clearly requires that there is one and only one of the elements.The indefinite article “a” or “an” thus usually means “at least one”.

The term “bacteria” includes any prokaryotic organism that does not havea distinct nucleus. The term “culturing” refers to the propagation oforganisms on or in various kinds of media. “Spore” refers to a dormantcell that can grow into a new organism and is highly resistant todesiccation and heat. “Sporulation” is the process through which cellsform spores. A “protein ingredient” is defined as a media componentsupplying a mixture of amino acids, polypeptides, and/or proteins thatsupports the growth of bacterial cells.

As used herein, the term “plant” refers to any living organism belongingto the kingdom Plantae (i.e., any genus/species in the Plant Kingdom).This includes familiar organisms such as but not limited to trees,herbs, bushes, grasses, veins, ferns, mosses and green algae. The termrefers to both monocotyledonous plants, also called monocots, anddicotyledonous plants, also called dicots. Examples of particular plantsinclude but are not limited to corn, potatoes, roses, apple trees,sunflowers, wheat, rice, bananas, tomatoes, opo, pumpkins, squash,lettuce, cabbage, oak trees, guzmania, geraniums, hibiscus, clematis,poinsettias, sugarcane, taro, duck weed, pine trees, Kentucky bluegrass, zoysia, coconut trees, brassica leafy vegetables (e.g. broccoli,broccoli raab, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage (Bok Choy andNapa), cauliflower, cavalo, collards, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens,rape greens, and other brassica leafy vegetable crops), bulb vegetables(e.g. garlic, leek, onion (dry bulb, green, and Welch), shallot, andother bulb vegetable crops), citrus fruits (e.g. grapefruit, lemon,lime, orange, tangerine, citrus hybrids, pummelo, and other citrus fruitcrops), cucurbit vegetables (e.g. cucumber, citron melon, edible gourds,gherkin, muskmelons (including hybrids and/or cultivars of cucumismelons), water-melon, cantaloupe, and other cucurbit vegetable crops),fruiting vegetables (including eggplant, ground cherry, pepino, pepper,tomato, tomatillo, and other fruiting vegetable crops), grape, leafyvegetables (e.g. romaine), root/tuber and corm vegetables (e.g. potato),and tree nuts (almond, pecan, pistachio, and walnut), berries (e.g.,tomatos, barberries, currants, elderberryies, gooseberries,honeysuckles, mayapples, nannyberries, Oregon-grapes, see-buckthorns,hackberries, bearberries, lingonberries, strawberries, sea grapes,lackberries, cloudberries, loganberries, raspberries, salmonberries,thimbleberries, and wineberries), cereal crops (e.g., corn, rice, wheat,barley, sorghum, millets, oats, ryes, triticales, buckwheats, fonio, andquinoa), pome fruit (e.g., apples, pears), stone fruits (e.g., coffees,jujubes, mangos, olives, coconuts, oil palms, pistachios, almonds,apricots, cherries, damsons, nectarines, peaches and plums), vein (e.g.,table grapes, wine grapes), fibber crops (e.g. hemp, cotton),ornamentals, and the like. For a more complete list of representativecrop plants see, for example, Glossary of Crop Science Terms: III,Nomenclature, Common and Scientific Names, Crop Science Society ofAmerica, July 1992, which is herein incorporated in its entirety.

As used herein, the term “pesticide” refers to composition comprisingone or more chemical substances or biological organisms capable ofkilling or inhibiting a pest. Pests include, but are not limited to,insects, pathogens (e.g., bacterium, fungi, viruses), weeds, molluscs,birds, mammals, fish, nematodes and microbes that compete with humans,e.g., for food. Pesticides can be classified into algicides, avicides,bactericides, fungicides, herbicides, insectcides, miticides/acaricides,molluscicides, nematicides, rodenticides, virucides, et al.

As used herein, the term “plant part” refers to any part of a plantincluding but not limited to the shoot, root, stem, seeds, stipules,leaves, petals, flowers, ovules, bracts, branches, petioles, internodes,bark, pubescence, tillers, rhizomes, fronds, blades, pollen, stamen, andthe like. The two main parts of plants grown in some sort of media, suchas soil, are often referred to as the “above-ground” part, also oftenreferred to as the “shoots”, and the “below-ground” part, also oftenreferred to as the “roots”. For a more comprehensive list of plant partssee, for example, James W. Perry and David Morton (1998) Photo Atlas forBotany, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 141 pages, which is hereinincorporated in its entirety.

As used herein, the term “fungicide” refers to a composition comprisingone or more chemical substances or biological organisms capable ofkilling or inhibiting both true fungi and their spores as well asoomycete pathogens, usually in a selective way. Fungicides are used bothin agriculture and to fight fungal infections in animals. Fungicide canbe either contact or systemic. In agriculture, a contact fungicide killsfungi by direct contact; a systemic fungicide spreads internally throughthe plant, thereby killing the fungi. Non-limiting examples offungicides include, but are not limited to, strobilurins (e.g.,HEADLINE® (strobilurins)), carboxamides, sulfananilides,phenylsulfamides, azoles, nitrogenous heterocycles, dicarboximides,phthalimides, carbamates (e.g., manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamatesuch as MANEX® (Manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), thiocarbamates,formamidines, antibiotics, aromatics, guanidines, organochlorinecompounds, organometallics, organophosphorus compounds, nitrophenylcompounds, sulfur heterocyclyl compounds, ureas, inorganics, and others(e.g., benzamacril, carvone, essential oil extract from plants, cedarleaf oil, neem oil, chloropicrin, DBCP, drazoxolon, fenaminosulf,metzoxolon, oxolinic acid, spiroxamine, cymoxanil, metrafenone.Prohexadione calcium, thicyofen, dithane, chlorothalanil, dichlorophen,dicloran, nitrothal-isopropyl, bronopol, diphenylamine, mildiomycin,oxin-copper, cyflufenamide (e.g.,N-(cyclopropylmethoxyimino-(6-difluoromethoxy-2,3-difluorophenyl)-methyl)-2-phenylacetamide),UK-2A (antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces sp. 517-02), RANMAN™(Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd), and microbe-based products, including butnot limited to Bacillus subtilis-based products, such as SONATA®(Bacillus pumilus). Other examples of fungicides include, MANZATE®(Mancozeb), DITHANE® (Mancozeb), ENDURA® (boscalid), QUADRIS®/AMISTAR®(azoxystrobin), CABRIO® (pyraclostrobin), TANOS® (famoxate+curzate),PRESIDIO® (fluopicolide), REVUS® (mandipropamid), FORUM® (dimethomorph),MANEB®/MANCOZEB® (Manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), RIDOMIL GOLD®SC (mefenoxam), REDOMIL GOLD® Copper (mefenoxam+Cu hydroxide),TERRACLOR® (PCNB), PREVICUR FLEX® (propamocarb), BRAVO®(chlorothalonil), ECHO® (chlorothalonil), fixed copper, ACTIGARD®(acibenzolar-S-methyl), and Streptomycin sulfate. As used herein, theterm “bactericide” refers to a composition comprising one or morechemical substances or biological organisms capable of killing orinhibiting bacteria, usually in a selective way.

As used herein, the phrase “systemic acquired resistance (SAR)” refersto a “whole-plant” resistance response that occurs following an earlierlocalized exposure to a pathogen. SAR is analogous to the innate immunesystem found in animals, and there is evidence that SAR in plants andinnate immunity in animals may be evolutionarily conserved. SAR isimportant for plants to resist disease, as well as to recover fromdisease once formed. SAR can be induced by a wide range of pathogens,especially (but not only) those that cause tissue necrosis, and theresistance observed following induction of SAR is effective against awide range of pathogens. SAR is associated with the induction of a widerange of genes (so called PR or “pathogenesis-related” genes), and theactivation of SAR often requires the accumulation of endogenoussalicylic acid (SA). The pathogen-induced signal activates a molecularsignal transduction pathway that is identified by a gene called NIM1,NPR1 or SAII (three names for the same gene) in the model genetic systemArabidopsis thaliana. SAR has been observed in a wide range of floweringplants, including dicotyledon and monocotyledon species.

As used herein, the phrase “defense proteins” refers to proteins thatare differentially induced at the onset of systemic acquired resistancein a plant.

As used herein, the term “synergy”, “synergistic” or “synergism” refersto a situation where two or more agents work together to produce aresult not obtainable by any of the agents independently. Synergy alsooccurs when a combination of agents can control disease that neitheragent can control independently. In addition, synergy occurs when asmaller amount of one or both agents, when combined, is required toobtain control of a disease, than when each agent is used independently.

The present invention is directed to methods and compositions useful ininducing systemic acquired resistance (SAR) to infection in a plant.More specifically, the present invention uses a Bacillus control agentto induce SAR in plants. Plants in which SAR has been induced arecapable of mounting defenses against a wide variety of infections. Thus,treatment of a plant with a Bacillus control agent that induces SARwould cause the plant to become more resistant to infections caused bysuch agents as fungi, bacteria or viruses. For example, treatment of abanana plant with a Bacillus control agent that induces SAR would resultin a banana plant that is resistant to infection such as Black Sigatoka.In another embodiment, the systemic acquired resistance in the plant isinduced through a salicylic acid independent and jasmonic acid dependentpathway. In one embodiment, the systemic acquire resistance is inducedby Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ through a NON-EXPRESSOR OFPATHOGENESIS-RELATED GENES1 (NPR1) dependent pathway. In anotherembodiment, the systemic acquired resistance is induced by Bacillusmojavensis isolate 203-7 through an NPR1 independent pathway.

Concerns related to the use of chemicals and genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) as a means of managing crop diseases has promptedinterest in methods of biological control. A non-pathogenic Bacilluscontrol agent capable of inducing systemic resistance would provide amethod of increasing disease resistance in a plant without the use ofchemicals or GMOs. In addition, the absence of necrosis as a result ofsuch application would be highly desirable. Additionally, it is alsodesirable to induce systemic resistance by foliar application of amicrobe as foliar application provides ease of application and broaderrange of application methods and equipment.

The invention is also directed to methods of screening for biologicalcontrol agents useful in inducing systemic acquired resistance toinfection in a plant. Such methods as described herein would allow rapiddetection of additional Bacillus control agents that can be used toinduce systemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant.

Accordingly, the present invention provides methods of inducing systemicresistance to infection in plants with a Bacillus control agent. By“plant” is meant any organism belonging to the plant or vegetablekingdom. In further preferred embodiments, the plant is a banana, acucurbit, (including, but not limited to, cucumbers, squash, pumpkins,and cantaloupes and other melons), a pecan, a sugar beet, or a geranium.“Plant” also encompasses parts of plants, as well as whole organisms.For example, the term plant encompasses a leaf or disc from a leaf,roots, stems, seeds, plant protoplasts, plant spores, plant shoots andplant cell cultures.

The plant being treated with Bacillus control agent is preferablycapable of accumulating salicylic acid, although this may not berequired in all cases. Salicylic acid accumulation is indicated for SARsignal transduction. Plants that do accumulate salicylic acid due totreatment with specific inhibitors, epigenetic repression ofphenylalanine ammonia-lyase, or transgenic expression of salicylatehydroxylase, which specifically degrades salicylic acid, generally donot exhibit either SAR gene expression or disease resistance (Gaffey etal., 1993; Delaney et al., 1994; Mauch-Mani and Slusarenko 1996; Maheret al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 7802-7806 (1994), incorporatedherein by reference; Pallas et al., Plant J. 10, 281-293 (1996),incorporated herein by reference). Plants in which SAR can be induced bya Bacillus control agent include, for example, sugar beets, bananas,cucurbits, pecans, and geraniums.

Additionally, the plant being treated with Bacillus control agent iscapable of producing defense proteins. By “defense proteins” is meantany protein that is differentially induced at the onset of systemicacquired resistance. Defense proteins include chitanses,B-1,3-glucanases, and peroxidases. Differential inducement of thedefense proteins can be measured by an increase in the amount of defenseproteins produced by the plant. Differential inducement can also bemeasured by an increase in the specific activity of the defenseproteins. The increase in specific activity can be related to thepresence of specific isoforms of the defense proteins. Additionally,differential inducement may also include differences in the normalratios of the proteins relative to each other.

In addition to the production of defense proteins, systemic acquiredresistance in the plant being treated is also preferably accompanied bya biphasic release of active oxygen species (AOS). Plants in which SARhas been induced exhibit an oxidative burst (Bargabus, et al., MPMI 16:1145-1153 (2003), herein incorporated by reference). The oxidative burstis one of the earliest events in plant defense responses (Costet et al2002). It is marked by the production of AOS through four sequential,one-electron reductions of dioxygen to water (Hippeli et al. 1999). TheAOS include, in order of least to most reactive and longest to shortestlived, hydrogen peroxide, superoxide anion, and hydroperoxyl andhydroxyl radicals (Boveris 1998).

AOS are produced in both compatible and incompatible plant-pathogeninteractions (Baker and Orlandi 1995; Glazener et al. 1996; Jabs et al.1997; Wolfe et al. 2000). The production of hydrogen peroxide andsuperoxide anion also has been observed in rhizobium-plant interactions(Santos et al. 2001). In a compatible plant-pathogen interaction, asingle, rapid burst of hydrogen peroxide is observed (Grant and Loake2000). This response is believed to be due to the perception by the hostof generic pathogen constituents, such as fungal glucans, chitins. orchitosans (Boller 1995), the conserved N-terminal region of bacterialflagella (Felix et al. 1999), or viral coat proteins (Allan et al.2001). The transient primary burst is nonspecific and has no effect ondisease progression (van Breusegem et al. 2001). During incompatibleinteractions, a second, more prolonged peak of hydrogen peroxideproduction quickly follows the initial burst as a result of specificgene-for-gene recognition (Baker and Orlandi 1995; Levein et al. 1994).

The present invention is directed to compositions and methods ofinducing systemic resistance to infection, particularly pathogeninfection, using a Bacillus control agent. By “systemic acquiredresistance” (or “SAR”) is meant a non-specific defense response ofplants triggered following the induction of a hypersensitive response byan invading pathogen. SAR has been observed in both monocotyledenous anddicotyledenous plants and may be triggered by any type of invadingpathogen (including bacteria, virus or fungus). The SAR response isnon-specific in that it produces enhanced resistance to a broad spectrumof pathogens, regardless of the type of invading pathogen that triggeredthe response. It generally occurs throughout the plant, regardless ofwhere the pathogen infection occurred. The SAR response usually beginswithin 2-10 days after the triggering pathogen invasion, and lasts foranywhere from several days to several weeks.

The present invention utilizes compositions comprising Bacillus controlagents. By “Bacillus control agent” or “Bacillus biological controlagent” herein is meant a Bacillus organism that can be used to eliminateor regulate the population of other living organisms, particularlyrelating to the regulation of pathogens in and on host plants. PreferredBacillus control agents include those agents that induce systemicacquired resistance. In a preferred embodiment, the Bacillus controlagent is a Bacillus mycoides isolate. In a further preferred embodiment,the Bacillus control agent is Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ (accessionnumber NRRL B-30890). In another preferred embodiment, the Bacilluscontrol agent is a Bacillus mojavensis isolate. In a further preferredembodiment, the Bacillus control agent is Bacillus mojavensis isolate203-7 (accession number NRRL B-30893). Additional preferred Bacilluscontrol agents can be identified as outlined below.

The present invention provides methods of inducing systemic acquiredresistance to pathogen infection in a plant. Thus, the methods of theinvention are useful in preventing or treating infections which arecaused by various microorganisms (e.g. pathogens) including, forexample, bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The present invention providesmethods of inducing disease resistance to infection in a plant,comprising applying a Bacillus control agent comprising Bacillusmojavensis isolate 203-7 and/or Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ to theplant, wherein the plant is capable of producing defense proteins. Inone embodiment, the disease resistance to infection is systemic acquiredresistance. In another embodiment, the systemic acquired resistance inthe plant is induced through a salicylic acid independent and jasmonicacid dependent pathway. In another embodiment, the systemic acquireresistance is induced by Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ through aNON-EXPRESSOR OF PATHOGENESIS-RELATED GENES1 (NPR1) dependent pathway.In another embodiment, the systemic acquired resistance is induced byBacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 through a NPR1 independent pathway.

In one embodiment, the plant is a monocot. For example, the monocotplant is in the gramineae and cereal groups. Non-limiting exemplarymonocot species include grains, tropical fruits and flowers, banana,maize, rice, barley, duckweed, gladiolus, sugar cane, pineapples, dates,onions, pineapple, rice, sorghum, turfgrass and wheat. In anotherembodiment, the plant is a dicot. For example, the dicot plant isselected from the group consisting of Anacardiaceae (e.g., cashews,pistachios), Asteraceae (e.g., asters and all the other compositeflowers), Brassicaceae (e.g., cabbage, turnip, and other mustards),Cactaceae (e.g., cacti), Cucurbitaceae (e.g., watermelon, squashes),Euphorbiaceae (e.g., cassaya (manioc)), Fabaceae (e.g., beans and allthe other legumes), Fagaceae (e.g., oaks), Geraniales (e.g., Geranium),Juglandaceae (e.g., pecans), Linaceae (e.g., flax), Malvaceae (e.g.,cotton), Oleaceae (e.g., olives, ashes, lilacs), Rosaceae (e.g., roses,apples, peaches, strawberries, almonds), Rubiaceae (e.g., coffee),Rutaceae (e.g., oranges and other citrus fruits), Solanaceae (e.g.,potato, tomato, tobacco), Theaceae (e.g., tea), and Vitaceae (e.g.,grapes).

In another embodiment, the infection is caused by any kind of infectious(i.e., biotic) agents that affect plants. Examples of suchagents/pathogens include but are not limited to an agent or pathogenselected from the group consisting of bacteria, fungi, and viruses.Examples of specific pathogens to be treated using the compositions andmethods of the present invention include but are not limited topathogens selected from the group consisting of Mycosphaerella fijiensis(Black sigatoka), Cladosporium caryigenum (pecan scab), Glomerellacingulata (Anthracnose), Cercospora beticola (Cercospora leaf spot),Botrytis cinerea, Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae (Fusarium Crownrot), Pseudomonas syringe (angular leaf spot), Erwinia caratovora(bacterial vascular necrosis), Alternaria solani (early blight),Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (wild mold disease), Xanthomonas campestris(bacterial spot disease), Botrytis cinerea (gray mold), Pythiumaphanidermalum (root rotting disease), Podosphora xanthii (Powderymildew), and plant viruses. In some embodiments, the plant viruses areselected from the group consisting of Potato Virus Y, cucumber mosaicvirus, tobacco mosaic virus, and squash vein yellowing virus.

Examples of bacteria that may cause infections treatable or preventableby inducing systemic resistance in a plant include Pseudomonas species,particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorecens, andPseudomonas syringe (angular leaf spot). Other bacteria that may causeinfections treatable or preventable by inducing systemic resistance in aplant include Erwinia caratovora (bacterial vascular necrosis), Pantouaagglomorans, Erwinia tracheiphilia, Xanthomonas axanopodis, andXanthomonas campestris. Depending on the species of bacteria and thetissue infected they produce and release enzymes that degrade cellwalls, growth regulators that alter the plants' normal growth, toxinsthat degrade cell membranes and/or complex sugars that plug waterconducting tissue. A general classification of phytopathogenicprokaryotes can be found below:

Kingdom: Procaryotae

Bacteria—Have cell membrane and cell wall and no nuclear membrane

Division: Bacteria—Gram-positive

-   -   Class: Proteabacteria—Mostly single celled bacteria.        -   Family: Enterobacteriaceae            -   Genus: Erwinia, causing fire blight of pear and apple,                Stewart's wilt in corn, and soft rot of fleshy                vegetables. Pantoea, causing wilt of corn. Serratia, S.                marcescens, a phloem-inhabiting bacterium causing yellow                vein disease of cucurbits.                -   Sphingomonas, causing brown spot of yellow Spanish                    melon fruit.        -   Family: Pseudomonadaceae            -   Genus: Acidovorax, causing leaf spots in corn, orchids                and watermelon. Pseudomonas, causing numerous leaf                spots, blights, vascular wilts, soft rots, cankers, and                galls.                -   Ralstonia, causing wilts of solanaceous crops.                -   Rhizobacter, causing the bacterial gall of carrots.                -   Rhizomonas, causing the corky root rot of lettuce.                -   Xanthomonas, causing numerous leaf spots, fruit                    spots, blights of annual and perennial plants,                    vascular wilts and citrus canker. Xylophilus,                    causing the bacterial necrosis and canker of                    grapevines.        -   Family: Rhizobiaceae            -   Genus: Agrobacterium, the cause of crown gall disease.                -   Rhizobium, the cause of nitrogen-fixing root nodules                    in legumes.        -   Family: still unnamed            -   Genus: Xylella, xylem-inhabiting, causing leaf scorch                and dieback disease on trees and veins.                -   Candidatus liberobacter, Phloem inhabiting, causing                    citrus greening disease.                -   Unnamed, laticifer-inhabiting, causing bunchy top                    disease of papaya.

Division: Firmicutes—Gram-positive bacteria.

-   -   Class: Firmibacteria—Mostly single celled bacteria.        -   Genus: Bacillus, causing rot of tubers, seeds, and seedlings            and white stripe of wheat.            -   Clostridium, causing rot of stored tubers and leaves and                wetwood of elm and poplar.    -   Class: Thallobacteria—Branching bacteria.        -   Genus: Arthrobacter, causing bacterial blight of holly,            thought to be the cause of Douglas-fir bacterial gall.        -   Clavibacter, causing bacterial wilts in alfalfa, potato, and            tomato.        -   Curtobacterium, causing wilt in beans and other plants.        -   Leifsonia, causing ratoon stunting of sugarcane.        -   Rhodococcus, causing fasciation of sweet pea.        -   Streptomyces, causing common potato scab.

More plant pathogenic bacteria are described in Robert W. Jackson, PlantPathogenic Bacteria: Genomics and Molecular Biology, published byHorizon Scientific Press, 2009, ISBN 1904455379, 9781904455370; SamuelS. Gnanamanickam, Plant-Associated Bacteria, published by Springer,2007, ISBN 1402045379, 9781402045370; Martin Dworkin et al., TheProkaryotes: a handbook on the biology of bacteria, Published bySpringer, 2006, ISBN 0387254927, 9780387254920; George N. Agrios, Plantpathology, published by Academic Press, 2005, ISBN 0120445654,9780120445653; and David W. Parry, Plant pathology in agriculture,published by CUP Archive, 1990, ISBN 0521368901, 9780521368902.

Numerous classes of plant pathogenic fungi, including oomycetes,ascomycetes, and basidiomycetes, may cause infections treatable orpreventable by inducing systemic resistance in a plant. Examples offungi that may cause infections treatable or preventable by inducingsystemic resistance in a plant include Cercospora beticola (Cercosporaleaf spot), Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Black sigatoka), Glomerellacingulata (Anthracnose) and Cladosporium caryigenum (pecan scab). Ingeneral, fungal plant diseases can be classified into two types: thosecaused by soilborne fungi and those caused by airborne fungi. Soilbornefungi cause some of the most widespread and serious plant diseases, suchas root and stem rot caused by Fusarium spp. And root rot caused byPhytophthora spp. For example, Phytophthora parasitica var. nicotiana, asoilborne oomycete found in many tobacco growing regions worldwide,causes black shank, a highly destructive root and stem rot disease ofmany varieties of cultivated tobacco. Since airborne fungi can be spreadlong distances by wind, they can cause devastating losses, particularlyin crops which are grown over large regions. A number of pathogens havecaused widespread epidemics in a variety of crops. Important diseasescaused by airborne fungi are stem rust (Puccinia graminis) on wheat,corn smut (Ustilago maydis) on corn, and late blight disease(Phytophthora infestans) on potato and tomato. Plasmopara viticola is anairborne oomycete that causes downy mildew disease on grape veins. Theblue mold fungus (Peronospora tabacina) has caused catastrophic lossesin tobacco crops, particularly in the United States and Cuba. Most ofthese fungal diseases are difficult to combat, and farmers and growersmust use a combination of practices, such as sanitary measures,resistant cultivars, and effective fungicide against such diseases.Billions of dollars are spent annually for chemical control ofplant-pathogenic fungi. As a result, there is today a real need for new,more effective and safe means to control plant-pathogenic fungi,particularly oomycete, which are responsible for major crop loss.Non-limiting examples of fungal plant pathogens include, Alternariasolani, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Botrytis cinerea, Podosphora xanthii,Cercospora, beticola, Mycosphaerella fijiensis, and Cladosporiumcaryigenum. More fungal plant pathogens are described in Arya et al.(Management of Fungal Plant Pathogens, CABI, 2010, ISBN 1845936035,9781845936037), Lane et al. (Fungal Plant Pathogens, Stylus Pub Llc,2011, ISBN 184593668X, 9781845936686), and Isaac (Fungal-plantinteractions, Springer 1992, ISBN 0412353903, 9780412353901), each ofwhich is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety for allpurposes.

Oomycetes is a class of Oomycota, which is a phylum of filamentousprotists, containing over around 70 genera and more than 800 knownspecies (J. W. Deacon Modern mycology Edition: 3, Published byWiley-Blackwell, 1997 ISBN 0632030771, 9780632030774).

“Oomycota” means “egg fungi”, referring to the oversize oogonia whichhouse the female gametes (eggs). Despite the name and their superficialappearance, oomycetes are not fungi. They are unicellular heterokonts,physically resembling fungi. Oomycetes are commonly known as water molds(or water moulds) or downy mildew. They are microscopic, absorptiveorganisms that reproduce both sexually and asexually and are composed ofmycelia, or a tube-like vegetative body (all of an organism's myceliaare called its thallus).

Oomycete cells differ from those of true fungi in that they have wallsof cellulose and the amino acid hydroxyproline. They are heterotophic,either saphropytic or parasitic. The principle cell wall of oomycetes isnot composed of chitin, as in the fungi, but is made up of a mix ofcellulosic compounds and glycan. The nuclei within the filaments arediploid, with two sets of genetic information, not haploid as in thefungi.

Oomycetes do not synthesize sterols. They have cillia (small hairlikestructures) that help it eat and move around. Among the oomycetes, theseare produced as asexual spores called zoospores, which are released fromsporangium and capitalize on surface water (including precipitation onplant surfaces) for movement. Oomycetes may also germinate directly onthe host plant by way of a germ tube. They also produce sexual spores,called oospores, that are translucent double-walled spherical structuresused to survive adverse environmental conditions. This type ofreproduction is known as “gametangical copulation”. A few produce aerialasexual spores that are distributed by wind.

The water molds are economically and scientifically important becausethey are aggressive plant pathogens. Some species can cause disease infish. The majority can be broken down into three groups, although moreexist.

The Phytophthora group is a genus that causes diseases such as dieback,late blight in potatoes, sudden oak death, rhododendron root rot, andink disease in the American Chestnut.

The Pythium group is even more prevalent than Phytophythora andindividual species have larger host ranges, usually causing less damage.Pythium damping off is a very common problem in greenhouses where theorganism kills newly emerged seedlings. Mycoparasitic members of thisgroup (e.g. P. oligandrum) parasitize other oomycetes and fungi, andhave been employed as biocontrol agents. One Pythium species, Pythiuminsidiosum is also known to infect mammals.

The third group of oomycetes is the downy mildews, which are easilyidentifiable by the appearance of white “mildew” on leaf surfaces.

Oomycete-caused plant diseases include, but are not limited to, grapedowny mildew (caused by Plasmopara viticola) and potato late blight(caused by Phytophthora infestans) and oomycete infestation of Arctotis(caused by Bremia lactucae), Chenopodium murale (caused by Peronosporafarinosa), cucurbits and cucumbers (caused by Pseudoperonosporacubensis), grasses and grains (caused by Sclerospora graminicola),lettuce (caused by Bremia lactucae), onion (caused by Peronosporadestructor), alfalfa (caused by Peronospora trifoliorum), lima bean(caused by Phytophthora phaseoli), sunflower (caused by Plasmoparahalstedii), carrot (caused by Plasmopara nivea, also called Plasmoparacrustosa), hops (caused by Pseudoperonospora humuli), crucifers (causedby Peronospora parasitica), spinach (caused by Peronospora effusa), beet(caused by Peronospora schachtii, also called Peronospora farinosa),peas (caused by Peronospora viciae), rose (caused by Peronosporasparsa), poppy (caused by Peronospora arborescens), tobacco (caused byPeronospora hyoscami), and violet (caused by Peronospora violae).

Plant viruses are viruses affecting plants. Examples of viruses that maycause infections treatable or preventable by inducing systemicresistance in a plant include cucumber mosaic, tobacco mosaic, andbarley yellow dwarf virus. Plant viruses are obligate intracellularparasites that do not have the molecular machinery to replicate withouta host. Over 50% of known plant viruses are rod shaped (flexuous orrigid). The length of the particle is normally dependent on the genomebut it is usually between 300-500 nm with a diameter of 15-20 nm.Protein subunits can be placed around the circumference of a circle toform a disc. In the presence of the viral genome, the discs are stacked,then a tube is created with room for the nucleic acid genome in themiddle. The second most common structure amongst plant viruses areisometric particles. They are 40-50 nm in diameter. In cases when thereis only a single coat protein, the basic structure consists of 60 Tsubunits, where T is an integer. Some viruses may have 2 coat proteinsare the associate to form a icosahedral shaped particle. There are threegenera of Geminiviridae that possess geminate particles which are liketwo isometric particles stuck together. A very small number of plantviruses have, in addition to their coat proteins, a lipid envelope. Thisis derived from the plant cell membrane as the virus particle buds offfrom the cell. Non-limiting exemplary plant viruses species are Alfalfamosaic virus (Alfamovirus), Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus(Trichovirus), Apple scar skin viroid (Viroids), Arabis mosaic virus(Nepovirus), Barley mild mosaic virus (Bymovirus), Barley stripe mosaicvirus (Hordeivirus), Barley yellow mosaic virus (Bymovirus), Bean commonmosaic virus (Potyvirus), Bean yellow mosaic virus (Potyvirus), Beetnecrotic yellow vein virus (Furovirus), Blackeye cowpea mosaic virus(Potyvirus), Bean common mosaic virus (Potyvirus), Broad bean wilt virus(Fabavirus), Butterbur mosaic virus (Carlavirus), Carnation mottle virus(Carmovirus), Carnation vein mottle virus (Potyvirus), Cauliflowermosaic virus (Caulimovirus), Chrysanthemum mild mottle virus(Cucumovirus), Tomato aspermy virus (Cucumovirus), Chrysanthemum stuntviroid (Viroids), Citrus mosaic virus, Citrus tristeza virus(Closterovirus), Clover yellow vein virus (Potyvirus), Cocksfoot mottlevirus (Sobemovirus), Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (Tobamovirus),Cucumber mosaic virus (Cucumovirus), Cycas necrotic stunt virus(Nepovirus), Dasheen mosaic virus (Potyvirus), Grapevine Algerian latentvirus (Tombusvirus), Konjac mosaic virus (Potyvirus), Melon necroticspot virus (Carmovirus), Mulberry ringspot virus (Nepovirus), Narcissusmosaic virus (Potexvirus), Odontoglossum ringspot virus (Tobamovirus),Papaya ringspot virus (Potyvirus), Peach latent mosaic viroid, Peanutmottle virus (Potyvirus), Peanut stripe virus (Potyvirus), Bean commonmosaic virus (Potyvirus), Peanut stunt virus (Cucumovirus), Potato virusA (Potyvirus), Potato virus M (Carlavirus), Potato virus S (Carlavirus),Potato virus X (Potexvirus), Potato virus Y (Potyvirus), Prune dwarfvirus (Ilarvirus), Prunus necrotic ringspot virus (Ilarvirus), Radishmosaic virus (Comovirus), Rice black streaked dwarf virus (Fijivirus),Rice dwarf virus (Reovirus), Rice grassy stunt virus (Tenuivirus), Ricestripe virus (Tenuivirus), Rice tungro spherical virus (Sequivirus),Rice waika virus, Rice tungro spherical virus (Sequivirus), Ryegrassmottle virus, Satsuma dwarf virus (Nepovirus), Soil-borne wheat mosaicvirus (Furovirus), Southern bean mosaic virus (Sobemovirus), Soybeanmosaic virus (Potyvirus), Soybean stunt virus (Cucumovirus), Cucumbermosaic virus (Cucumovirus), Tobacco mosaic virus (Tobamovirus), Tobaccomosaic virus (Tobamovirus), Tomato mosaic virus (Tobamovirus), Tobacconecrosis virus ecrovirus), Tobacco rattle virus (Tobravirus), Tobaccoringspot virus (Nepovirus), Tomato aspermy virus (Cucumovirus), Tomatoblack ring virus (Nepovirus), Tomato mosaic virus (Tobamovirus), Tomatoringspot virus (Nepovirus), Tomato spotted wilt virus (Tospovirus),Turnip mosaic virus (Potyvirus), Watermelon mosaic virus 1 (Potyvirus),Papaya ringspot virus (Potyvirus), Watermelon mosaic virus 2(Potyvirus), Wheat yellow mosaic virus (Bymovirus), Zucchini yellowmosaic virus (Potyvirus). More plant viruses have been described in F.C. Bawden, Plant Viruses and Virus Diseases, Publisher Biotech Books,2002, ISBN 8176220647, 9788176220644, which is incorporated herein byits entirety for all purposes.

In one embodiment of the invention, systemic acquired resistance toinfection is induced by applying to the foliage of the plant acomposition comprising a Bacillus control agent.

Methods of Controlling Plant Diseases

In some embodiments, the present Bacillus control agent comprisesBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 orspores thereof. The agent can be used to control one or more plantdiseases, such as fungal plant diseases, bacterial plant diseases,and/or viral plant diseases. As used herein, the term “control” or“controlling” means to kill plant pathogens; or to reduce the symptomsor damages due to the diseases; or to inhibit the activity of plantpathogens (e.g., reduced mobility, spreading and/or reproductivecapability); or to prevent or reduce plant pathogen transmission from ahost or area.

In some embodiments, the Bacillus control agent is applied to a plant orone or more plant parts by itself, or mixed with another control agent,or rotated with another control agent. The Bacillus control agent can beapplied anytime during the life cycle of a plant. For example, thecontrol agent can be applied to plants before, during, or aftergermination, growing, blossoming, fruiting, harvesting, ortransplanting. It can also be applied to the soil around the plant.

The Bacillus control agent is effective in controlling many plantdiseases, including but not limited to, early blight disease (Alternariasolani), white mold disease (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), bacterial spotdisease (Xanthomonas campestris), gray mold (Botrytis cinerea), rootrotting disease (Pythium aphanidermatum), powdery mildew (Podosphoraxanthii), pecan scab (Cladosporium caryigenum), diseases caused byCercospora beticola, or Pseudomonas species, and diseases associatedwith plant viruses, such as Potato Virus Y, cucumber mosaic virus,tobacco mosaic virus, and squash vein yellowing virus.

Early blight caused by Alternaria solani is a fungal plant disease.Tomatoes and potatoes are the most common hosts, but it can also attackeggplant, pepper, horse nettle, black nightshade, wild cabbage,cucumber, and zinnia, etc. It affects plants in all plant growth stagesand in all the plant parts except the roots.

White mold disease caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is a fungal plantdisease, a.k.a. sclerotinia stem rot. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is afungus that has a wide host range, including alfalfa, beans, canola,clover, peppermint, potato, sunflower, and tomato. It can also infectseveral weed hosts, such as amaranths, castor bean, dandelion,lambsquarters, ragweed, and velvetleaf, etc. Because sclerotia survivein the soil, soil movement could also transport inoculum from one fieldto another. White mold management in the prior art is difficult whenenvironmental conditions are favorable for the disease. The sclerotiacan remain in the soil for several years, and lose their viabilityslowly. The most effective defense against white mold is to keep thefungus out of a field, but this can be difficult.

Potato virus Y (PVY) is a plant pathogenic virus of the familyPotyviridae, and one of the most important plant viruses affectingpotato production. PVY is transmissible by aphid vectors but may alsoremain dormant in seed potatoes. PVY belongs to the potyvirus genus,which includes more than 200 members that bring about significant lossesin the agricultural arena (Jawaid, A. Khan A. J and Dijkstra J. (2002).Plant Viruses as Molecular Pathogens. Food Products Press, The HaworthPress Inc., N.Y.). PVY infects many economically important plantspecies. These include, but are not limited to, Solanaceae species, suchas potato (Solanum tuberosum), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), tomato(Solanum lycopersicum) and pepper (Capsicum spp.). There are three maingroups of Potato Virus Y strains: PVY^(O) (ordinary type) occurs in mostpotato growing countries worldwide; PVY^(C) in eastern Australia, SouthAmerica, New Zealand, Europe, South Africa, and North America; andPVY^(N) in North America, New Zealand, Europe, Africa and South America.PVY^(NTN) is a new type of strain that causes tuber necrosis (reportedin Europe, New Zealand, Middle East, North America and Japan).

Bacterial spot caused by Xanthomonas campestris is a bacterial plantdisease. Xanthomonas species is a Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteriaknown for being a common plant pathogen. Xanthomonas affects many typesof hosts, including citrus, beans, grapes, cotton, and rice. Typicalsymptoms of the disease include lesions on the leaves, fruit, and stems.Xanthomonas campestris is an aerobic, Gram-negative rod known to causethe black rot in crucifers by darkening the vascular tissues. Over 20different hosts of X. campestris have been identified by its distinctivepathogenicity on a wide range of plants including crops and wild plants.This bacterium is mesophilic with optimal temperature at 25-30 degreesCelsius (77-85 degrees Fahrenheit) and inactive at temperatures below 10degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) See, Averre, Charles W. “BlackRot of Cabbage and Related Crops” Accessed on Aug. 16, 2007. X.campestris cells have Hypersensitive response and pathogenicity (Hrp)pili that help transfer effector proteins to decrease the host's defenseand glide through water. They can live in a soil for over a year andspread through any movement of water including rain, irrigation andsurface water.

Gray mold disease is caused by fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea. It isfound almost everywhere and can cause disease on almost every plantspecies. The fungus overwinters in the soil and in plant debris; itbecomes active under cool moist conditions. Prevention includes adequateair circulation, good sanitation, and avoiding overcrowding and overheadwatering late in the day. It is favored by high (93-100%) relativehumidity and low (45° to 60° F.) temperatures. Botrytis infectsimmature, dying or damaged foliage, flower parts, young stems, andoccasionally roots. Since Botrytis will grow on almost any decayingplant material, its host range includes almost all plants.

Root rotting pathogen Pythium aphanidermatum is a a cosmopolitanpathogen with a wide host range. It is an aggressive species of Pythium,causing damping off, root and stem rots, and blights of grasses andfruit. It is of economic concern on most annuals, cucurbits, andgrasses. It is considered one of the water molds because it survives andgrows best in wet soils. Warm temperatures favor the pathogen, making itan issue in most greenhouses. Pythium aphanidermatum occurs world wide,particularly in warm regions and greenhouses. The fungus preferstemperatures between 27 and 34° C. and wet conditions (water potentialof 0 to −0.01 bars). It has a very wide host range, including manyannuals and bedding plants. It causes economic losses on ornamentalplants, such as beets, pepper, chrysanthemum, cucurbits, cotton, andgrasses, etc. Ornamental plants are plants that are grown for decorativepurposes in gardens and landscape design projects, as house plants, forcut flowers and specimen display. The cultivation of these forms a majorbranch of horticulture. Most commonly ornamental garden plants are grownfor the display of aesthetic features including: flowers, leaves, scent,overall foliage texture, fruit, stem and bark, and aesthetic form. Insome cases, unusual features may be considered of interest, such as theprominent and rather vicious thorns of Rosa sericea and cacti. In allcases, their purpose is for the enjoyment of gardeners, visitors, and/orthe public. Pythium survives in the soil as oospores, hyphae andsporangia. The fungus can survive unfavorable soil moisture andtemperatures for several years as oospores. Oospores may form a germtube directly to infect the plant or they may form sporangia. Thesporangia produce zoospores, which are the motile form of the fungus.The zoospores swim around briefly before encysting and forming a germtube, which can cause infection. Sporangia that have developed on planttissue can germinate in a similar manner as the oospores, by eithergerminating directly or by forming zoospores. The pathogen is dispersedwhen infected debris is transported to uninfested areas and when thesoil moisture is enough to allow the zoospores to swim freely. Pythiumaphanidermatum infects seeds, juvenile tissue, lower stems, fruit rotand roots. The symptoms and extent of damage caused depend on the regioninfected. The pathogen is associated with disease symptoms such asdamping off, stem rot, root rot, pythium blight, cottony blight, etc.

Powdery mildew diseases are caused by many different species of fungi inthe order Erysiphales. The lower leaves are the most affected, but themildew can appear on any above-ground part of the plant. As the diseaseprogresses, the spots get larger and denser as large numbers of asexualspores are formed, and the mildew may spread up and down the length ofthe plant. Non-limiting examples of Powdery mildew include, powderymildew caused by Erysiphe necator (or Uncinula necator), e.g., in grape;powdery mildew caused by Blumeria graminis forma specialis (f. sp.)tritici, e.g., in wheat; powdery mildew caused by Leveillula taurica(also known by its anamorph name, Oidiopsis taurica), e.g., in onionsand artichoke; powdery mildew caused by Podosphora leucotricha, e.g., inapples, and pear; powdery mildew caused by Podosphaera fusca, e.g., inCurcurbits: cucumbers, squashes (including pumpkins), luffas, melons andwatermelons; powdery mildew caused by Microsphaera syringae, e.g., inlilacs; powdery mildew caused by Podosphaera aphanis, e.g., instrawberry and other Rosaceae; powdery mildew caused by Sawadaeatulasnei; and powdery mildew caused by Podosphora xanthii (also asPodosphaera xanthii, or Sphaerotheca fuliginea Schlech ex Fr. Poll.),e.g., in Curcurbits.

The host range of Podosphaera xanthii includes several families ofangiosperm species, such as Asteracea, Cucurbitaceae, Lamiaceae,Scrophulariaceae, Solanaceae and Verbenaceae (Perez-Garcia et al., MolPlant Pathol. 2009 March; 10(2):153-60.). Other scientific names forPodosphaera xanthii include, Oidium citrulli J. M. Yen & Chin C. Wang,Sphaerotheca xanthii (Castagne) L. Junell, Erysiphe fuscata Berk. & M.A. Curtis, Erysiphe xanthii Castagne, Spaerotheca fuscata (Berk. & M. A.Curtis) Serbinov, Sphaerotheca microcarpa Haszl., Sphaerothecacalendulae (Malbr. & Roum.) Malbr., Sphaerotheca verbenae Savul. & NegruSphaerotheca indica Patw., Sphaerotheca cucurbitae (Jacz.) Z. Y. Zhao,Sphaerotheca phaseoli (Z. Y. Zhao) U. Braun, Podosphaera phaseoli (Z. Y.Zhao) U. Braun & S. Takam., Sphaerotheca fuliginea auct. p.p., Oidiumerysiphoides auct. p.p., Erysiphe fuliginea auct. p.p., Sphaerothecacastagnei auct. p.p., Sphaerotheca humuli var. fuliginea auct. p.p.

Downey mildew caused by Pseudoperonospora cubensis is a fungal plantdisease. The host range of Pseudoperonospora cubensis includescucurbits, such as cantaloupe, cucumber, pumpkin, squash and watermelon.P. cubensis is an obligate parasite or biotroph, meaning that itrequires live host tissue in order to survive and reproduce. Because ofthis characteristic, the pathogen must overwinter in an area that doesnot experience a hard frost, such as southern Florida, and where wild orcultivated cucurbits are present. The spores are dispersed via wind toneighboring plants and fields and often over long distances. Symptomsappear 4 to 12 days after infection. The pathogen thrives under cool andmoist conditions, but can do well under a wide range of conditions.Optimum conditions for sporulation are 59° F. (15° C.) with 6 to 12hours of moisture present, often in the form of morning dew. Even whenhigh daytime temperatures are not favorable for the pathogen (>95° F.or >35° C.), nighttime temperatures may be very suitable.

Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) is a positive-sense single stranded RNA virusthat infects plants, especially tobacco and other members of the familySolanaceae. TMV does not have a distinct over-wintering structure.Rather, it will over-winter in infected tobacco stalks and leaves in thesoil or on the surface of contaminated seed (TMV can even survive incontaminated tobacco products for many years). With direct contact tohost plants through its vectors (normally insects such as aphids andleaf hoppers), TMV will go through the infection process and then thereplication process. It is known to infect members of nine plantfamilies, and at least 125 individual species, including tobacco,tomato, pepper (all members of the useful Solanaceae), cucumbers, anumber of ornamental flowers, petunia, snapdragon, delphinium, marigold,muskmelon, cucumber, squash, spinach, celosia, impatiens, ground cherry,phlox, zinnia, certain types of ivy, plantain, night shade, and jimsonweed.

Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) is a plant pathogenic virus in the familyBromoviridae. It is the type member of the plant virus genus,Cucumovirus. This virus has a worldwide distribution and a very widehost range, such as squash, melons, peppers, beans, tomatoes, carrots,celery, lettuce, spinach and beets, various weeds and many ornamentalsand bedding plants. CMV is mainly transmitted by aphids. It can also bespread mechanically by humans.

Squash vein yellowing virus is the cause of watermelon vein decline(WVD) disease (Baker et al., Plant Pathology Circular No. 407 Fla. Dept.of Agric. & Consumer Services, June/July 2008). The host range, whitelytransmission, and deduced coat protein (CP) sequence of SqVYV areconsistent with it being a novel member of the genus Ipomovirus in thefamily Potyviridae. SqVYV was transmitted by whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci,biotype B). The host range is likely limited to species in theCucurbitaceae.

Wheat streak mosaic virus is a member of the Potyviridae family ofviruses. It occurs in most leaf cells as flexuous rods. The wheat curlmite, Aceria tosichella, vectors the virus in the field. It is alsoeasily transmissible through sap by mechanical inoculation. The wheatcurl mite vector feeds on young lush growth of wheat and certaingrasses. Mites develop from eggs to adults within 8 to 10 days, andtheir numbers can increase markedly during relatively short periods whenthe environment is favorable. The most important host is volunteer wheatthat emerges before harvest, often because of hailstorms. The mites movefrom the hailed wheat as it matures to the young volunteer wheat inearly July. Reproduction of mites and replication of the virus arefavored by temperatures of 75° to 80° F. Rain during summer promotesgrowth of volunteer plants. In the fall mites move, from the volunteerplants to the newly emerged fall-planted winter wheat seedlings. Thewingless curl mite depends on wind for its dispersal. Both the mites andWSMV persist on living, susceptible plants, but not on wheat or othergrasses as they mature and dry down. Growing wheat is the favoritehabitat for the wheat curl mites. Certain other small grains, such asoats, barley, and rye can be attacked by both WSMV and the mites, butthey do not show obvious symptoms or significant damage. Wheat, Prosomillet, corn, Jointed goatgrass, Japanese chess, Cheat, Downy chess,Sandbur, Smooth crabgrass, Crabgrass, Barnyard grass, and Green foxtailare susceptible to this virus.

The Bacillus control agent is applied to a plant or a plant part at aneffective amount to control one or more plant pathogens. As used herein,an effective amount of an active ingredient is an amount effective tocontrol plant pathogens and/or to reduce plant damage caused by a plantpathogen. In some embodiments, an effective amount is an amounteffective to kill and/or to inhibit plant pathogen growth by about 5%,about 10%, about 20%, about 30%, about 40%, about 50%, about 60%, about70%, about 75%, about 80%, about 85%, about 90%, or more compared to ahost or area not treated with the active ingredient. In some othercases, an effective amount of an active ingredient is an amounteffective to reduce the percent of infected plants in a plant populationby at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%,at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, atleast 80%, at least 90%, or more compared to a population not treatedwith the active ingredient. Still in some other cases, an effectiveamount of an active ingredient is an amount effective to reduce thepercent of plants showing diseases symptom in a plant population by atleast 5%, at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%, atleast 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, atleast 80%, at least 90%, or more compared to a population not treatedwith the active ingredient. In some other cases, an effective amount ofan active ingredient is an amount effective to reduce average diseasesymptom severity rating or damage rating of a plant population by atleast 5%, at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%, atleast 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, atleast 80%, at least 90%, or more compared to a population not treatedwith the active ingredient. In some other cases, an effective amount ofan active ingredient is an amount effective to increase yield of a plantpopulation by at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20%, atleast 25%, at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, atleast 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, or more compared to a populationnot treated with the active ingredient. In some other cases, aneffective amount of an active ingredient is an amount effective toreduce average pathogen population in a plant population by at least 5%,at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%, at least 30%, atleast 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, atleast 90%, or more compared to a plant population not treated with theactive ingredient. In some embodiments, the Bacillus control agent canbe applied to a plant at 10³-10¹² cfu (“colony forming units”)/ml, e.g.,10⁴-10¹⁰ cfu/ml, 10⁵-10⁹ cfu/ml, or 10⁷ cfu/ml.

The present application provides methods using the control agents of thepresent application to control plant diseases not or not only bydirectly controlling the pathogens, but by or additionally by affectinga pathogen transmission mechanism, for example, by using the agents ofthe present invention as a repellent. As used herein, repellent refersto a substance applied to plant which discourages one or more pathogentransmitters (a.k.a. “vectors”, e.g., insects, mites) from contacting aplant, such as landing, climbing, feeding, or continuous feeding on thatplant. In some embodiments, the methods comprise applying the Bacilluscontrol agents of the present invention to a plant or a plant partbefore or after the emergence or appearance of a pathogen transmitter.For example, the Bacillus control agents can be used to prevent orreduce virus infection, such as potato virus Y or wheat streak mosaicvirus. A pathogen transmitter of potato virus Y can be an aphid, such asa green peach aphid. A pathogen transmitter of wheat streak mosaic viruscan be a mite, such as a wheat curl mite. The Bacillus control agents ofthe present invention can comprise dead or alive cells or spores ofBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890. Insome embodiments, the agents of the present invention can repel apathogen transmitter from contacting or feeding on the plants for atleast 0.5 day, at least 1 day, at least 2 days, at least 3 days, atleast 4 days, at least 5 days, at least 6 days, at least 1 week, or moreafter application.

The present application also provides methods of controlling one or moresoil-borne root pathogens by foliar application of the Bacillus controlagents of the present invention. In some embodiments, the Bacilluscontrol agent can be applied to a plant at 10³-10¹² cfu (“colony formingunits”)/ml, e.g., 10⁴-10¹⁰ cfu/ml, 10⁵-10⁹ cfu/ml, or 10⁷ cfu/ml. Insome embodiments, the pathogen is Pythium aphanidermatum. Othernon-limiting examples of soil-borne root pathogens are described byCampbell and Noe (The Spatial Analysis of Soilborne Pathogens and RootDiseases, Annual Review of Phytopathology Vol. 23: 129-148, 1985),Toussoun (Root diseases and soil-borne pathogens, University ofCalifornia Press, 1970, ISBN 0520015827, 9780520015821), each of whichis herein incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.The Bacillus control agents can be applied to a plant at any stage ofits life cycle, for example, before, during or after transplanting.

Methods of Applying the Bacillus Control Agents

The Bacillus control agent is applied to the foliage of the plant bymethods known in the art. For example, the Bacillus control agent may beapplied aerially. In this method, the Bacillus control agent is sprayedfrom above the plants, for example from an airplane. The concentrationof the Bacillus control agent applied aerially is 10³-10¹² cfu (“colonyforming units”)/ml, for example, about 10⁴-10¹⁰ cfu/ml, about 10⁵-10⁹cfu/ml, or about 10⁷-10⁸ cfu/ml. The Bacillus control agent can beapplied at a wide range of volume/acre of plants treated. For example,the Bacillus control agent may be applied at 1-100 gallons/acre, forexample, 2-50 gallons/acre, 5-10 gallons/acre, 6-8 gallons/acre, or 5gallons/acre.

The Bacillus control agent can also be applied from the ground, forexample by any agricultural spray equipment, such as, for example, anorchard spray mechanism. An orchard spray mechanism is any sprayer,either manual or automatic, that can be used to apply the Bacilluscontrol agent to the foliage of a plant. The concentration of theBacillus control agent applied from the ground is 10³-10¹² cfu/ml, forexample, about 10⁴-10¹⁰ cfu/ml, about 10⁵-10⁹ cfu/ml, or about 10⁷cfu/ml. The Bacillus control agent can be applied from the ground at awide range of volume/acre of plants treated. For example, the Bacilluscontrol agent may be applied at 10-500 gallons/acre, for example, about10-100 gallons/acre, or 20 gallons/acre.

In one embodiment, the Bacillus control agent is applied to the plantsas a spray-dried formulation suspended in an aqueous solution. Inanother embodiment, the Bacillus control agent is applied as freshlygrown cells. In another preferred embodiment the Bacillus control agentis formulated with a carrier to aid dilution and dispersion, whereinsuch a carrier could include various types of clay, such as attaclay.

In a preferred embodiment, after the Bacillus control agent has beenapplied to the plant, particularly to the foliage of the plant, itproceeds to colonize the plant; particularly the plant phyllosphere.

In a further preferred embodiment of the invention, the Bacillus controlagents of the invention do not induce necrotic cell death as a result ofinducing systemic acquired resistance. By “cell necrosis” or “necroticcell death” or grammatical equivalents herein is meant cell death thatoccurs at the site of application (e.g. the foliage) of an agent thatcauses such necrosis. Plants are examined for necrosis by observation ofleaves by microscope, and by staining techniques that selectively stainfor dead cells. One of the problems associated with known agents thatinduce systemic resistance is necrotic cell death that occurs at thesite of application of the agents. Unlike these agents, the applicationof the Bacillus control agent does not cause necrotic cell death.

The present invention also provides methods of inducing diseaseresistance to infection in a plant further comprising applying a secondbiological or chemical control agent. In one embodiment, the secondbiological or chemical control agent is antibacterial. In anotherembodiment, the second biological or chemical control agent isantifungal. In another embodiment, the second biological or chemicalcontrol agent is antiviral. In another embodiment, the second biologicalor chemical control agent is a plant activating agent. In anotherembodiment, the second biological or chemical control agent is apesticide. Commonly used bactericides, fungicides, virucides, plantactivating agents and pesticides are described below.

Non limiting exemplary bactericides include, active chlorine (i.e.,hypochlorites, chloramines, dichloroisocyanurate andtrichloroisocyanurate, wet chlorine, chlorine dioxide etc.), activeoxygen (peroxides, such as peracetic acid, potassium persulfate, sodiumperborate, sodium percarbonate and urea perhydrate), iodine (iodpovidone(povidone-iodine, Betadine), Lugol's solution, iodine tincture,iodinated nonionic surfactants), concentrated alcohols (mainly ethanol,1-propanol, called also n-propanol and 2-propanol, called isopropanoland mixtures thereof; further, 2-phenoxyethanol and 1- and2-phenoxypropanols are used), phenolic substances (such as phenol (alsocalled “carbolic acid”), cresols (called “Lysole” in combination withliquid potassium soaps), halogenated (chlorinated, brominated) phenols,such as hexachlorophene, triclosan, trichlorophenol, tribromophenol,pentachlorophenol, Dibromol and salts thereof), cationic surfactants,such as some quaternary ammonium cations (such as benzalkonium chloride,cetyl trimethylammonium bromide or chloride, didecyldimethylammoniumchloride, cetylpyridinium chloride, benzethonium chloride) and others,non-quaternary compounds, such as chlorhexidine, glucoprotamine,octenidine dihydrochloride etc.), strong oxidizers, such as ozone andpermanganate solutions; heavy metals and their salts, such as colloidalsilver, silver nitrate, mercury chloride, phenylmercury salts, coppersulfate, copper oxide-chloride, antibiotics (e.g., Amikacin, Gentamicin,Kanamycin, Neomycin, Netilmicin, Tobramycin, Paromomycin, Geldanamycin,Herbimycin, Loracarbef, Ertapenem, Doripenem, Imipenem/Cilastatin,Meropenem, Cefprozil, Cefuroxime, Cefixime, Cephalosporins, Teicoplanin,Vancomycin, Telavancin, Lincosamides, Daptomycin, Azithromycin,Clarithromycin, Dirithromycin, Erythromycin, Roxithromycin,Troleandomycin, Telithromycin, Spectinomycin, Penicillins, Quinolones,Tetracyclines, Clofazimine, Dapsone, Capreomycin, Cycloserine,Ethambutol, Ethionamide, Isoniazid, Pyrazinamide, Rifampicin, Rifabutin,Rifapentine, Streptomycin) and bacteriophages, etc.

Commonly used fungicides include, but are not limited to, benomyl, TPTH,propiconazole, tetraconazole, benimidazoles, triazoles, strobilurins,carboxamides, sulfananilides, phenylsulfamides, azoles, nitrogenousheterocycles, dicarboximides, phthalimides, carbamates, thiocarbamates,formaidines, antibiotics, aromatics, guanidines, organochlorinecompounds, organometallics, organophosphorus compounds, nitrophenylcompounds, sulfur heterocyclyl compounds, ureas, inorganics, and others(e.g., benzamacril, carvone, essential oil extract from plants, cedarleaf oil, neem oil, chloropicrin, DBCP, drazoxolon, fenaminosulf,metzoxolon, oxolinic acid, spiroxamine, cymoxanil, metrafenone.Prohexadione calcium, thicyofen, dithane, chlorothalanil, dichlorophen,dicloran, nitrothal-isopropyl, bronopol, diphenylamine, mildiomycin,oxin-copper, cyflufenamide (e.g.,N-(cyclopropylmethoxyimino-(6-difluoromethoxy-2,3-difluorophenyl)-methyl)-2-phenylaceta-mide),UK-2A (antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces sp. 517-02), HEADLINE®(stroblurins), MANEX® (Manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), MANZATE®(Mancozeb), SONATA® (Bacillus pumilus), DITHANE® (Mancozeb), ENDURA®(boscalid), QUADRIS®/AMISTAR® (azoxystrobin), CABRIO® (pyraclostrobin),TANOS® (famoxate+curzate), PRESIDIO® (fluopicolide), REVUS®(mandipropamid), FORUM® (dimethomorph), MANEB®/MANCOZEB® (Manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate), RIDOMIL GOLD® SC (mefenoxam), RIDOMIL GOLD®Copper (mefenoxam+Cu hydroxide), TERRACLOR® (PCNB), PREVICUR FLEX®(propamocarb), BRAVO® (chlorothalonil), ECHO® (chlorothalonil), fixedcopper, ACTIGARD® (acibenzolar-5-methyl), and Streptomycin sulfate, etc.

Plant activating agents are natural or synthetic substances that canstimulate, maintain, or enhance plant resistance to biotic and/orabiotic stressors/pressures, which include, but are not limited to,acibenzolar, probenazole, isotianil, salicyclic acid, azelaic acid,hymexazol, brassinolide, forchlorfenuron, benzothiadiazole (e.g.,ACTIGARD® (Acibenzolar-S-Methyl) 50WG), microbes or elicitors derivedfrom microbes, More plant activating agents are described in U.S. Pat.Nos. 6,849,576, 5,950,361, 6,884,759, 5,554,576, 6,100,092, 6,207,882,6,355,860, 5,241,296, 6,369,296, 5,527,783, and 6987130. Microbes, orchemical compounds and peptides/proteins (e.g., elicitors) derived frommicrobes, can also be used as plant activating agents. Non-limitingexemplary elicitors are: branched-β-glucans, chitin oligomers,pectolytic enzymes, elicitor activity independent from enzyme activity(e.g. endoxylanase, elicitins, PaNie), avr gene products (e.g. AVR4,AVR9), viral proteins (e.g. vial coat protein, Harpins), flagellin,protein or peptide toxin (e.g. victorin), glycoproteins, glycopeptidefragments of invertase, syringolids, Nod factors(lipochitooligo-saccharides), FACs (fatty acid amino acid conjugates),ergosterol, bacterial toxins (e.g. coronatine), and sphinganine analoguemycotoxins (e.g. fumonisin B1). More elicitors are described in Howe etal., Plant Immunity to Insect Herbivores, Annual Review of PlantBiology, 2008, vol. 59, pp. 41-66; Stergiopoulos, Fungal EffectorProteins Annual Review of Phytopathology, 2009, vol. 47, pp. 233-263;and Bent et al., Elicitors, Effectors, and R Genes: The New Paragigm anda Lifetime Supply of Questions, Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2007,vol. 45, pp. 399-436.

Thus, it is another aspect of this invention to apply a biological orchemical control agent in addition to the Bacillus control agent appliedto induce systemic acquired resistance to infection in a plant. Thereare a number of control agents that can be combined with the agents ofthe invention, including biological and chemical control agents.

Biological control agents are living organisms which can be used toeliminate or regulate the population of other living organisms.Biological control agents can be, for example, antibacterial agents,antifungal agents, antiviral agents, and insecticides. Examples ofbiological control agents include, but are not limited to, Bacillusmycoides, Bacillus pumulis, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), Bacillusliquefacians, numerous species of Pseudomonas bacteria, Seratiamarcesans, and Pantoua agglomerans. Biological control agents includethose agents that induce systemic acquired resistance, although this isnot required in the combination treatments outlined herein.

Chemical control agents are chemical substances which can be used toeliminate or regulate the population of living organisms. Chemicalcontrol agents can be, for example, antibacterial agents, antifungalagents, antiviral agents, and insecticides. Examples of chemical controlagents include, but are not limited to, triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH,SuperTin, Griffin LLC), propiconazole (Tilt, Syngenta Crop Protection,Inc) and tetraconazole (Eminent, Sipeam Agro USA Inc.), benomyl,Strobilurin fungicides including Azoxystrobilurin (Syngenta),Trifloxstrobilurin (Bayer), Pyracstrobilurin (BASF) and Chlorthalonilfungicides. Chemical control agents may be applied as outlined herein tothe foliage in combination with or alternating with the Bacillus controlagent. Combinations with the Bacillus control agent and the chemicalfungicide used at ¼ of the recommended label rate have provided diseasecontrol equivalent to the chemical fungicide used at the full rate.Chemical control agents include those agents that induce systemicacquired resistance, although this is not required in the combinationtreatments outlined herein.

In one embodiment of the invention, the Bacillus control agent isapplied in conjunction with the application of the biological orchemical control agent. In this embodiment, the Bacillus control agentis mixed with the biological or chemical agent and appliedsimultaneously to the plant. Alternatively, the Bacillus control agentand biological or chemical control agent are applied separately butsimultaneously to the plant. Additionally, the Bacillus control agentmay be applied after the biological or chemical control agent has beenapplied to the plant but during the time the biological or chemicalcontrol agent is still acting as a biocontrol agent. The biological orchemical control agent may also be applied after the application of theBacillus control agent plant but during the time the Bacillus controlagent is still acting to induce systemic acquired resistance in theplant.

In further embodiments, the Bacillus control agent is appliedsequentially with the biological or chemical control agent. In one ofthese embodiments, the Bacillus control agent is applied to the plantand induces systemic acquired resistance before the application of thebiological or chemical control agent. The systemic acquired resistanceinduced by the Bacillus control agent mayor may not be present when thebiological or chemical control agent is applied. Alternatively, thebiological or chemical control agent is applied to the plant before theBacillus control agent. The biological or chemical control agent mayormay not still be acting as a biocontrol agent when the Bacillus controlagent is applied. This sequential application may be repeated.

According to one embodiment, when the biological or chemical controlagent is an antibacterial agent it is preferable that the antibacterialagent is applied prior to the application of the Bacillus control agentsuch that the Bacillus control agent is not effected by theantibacterial agent.

In one embodiment, the Bacillus control agent is harvested from theplant it has colonized and is then used to induce systemic resistance inplants, a process referred to as host passage. Bacillus control agentsthat have undergone host passage have been shown to be more effective ininducing systemic resistance than those same agents prior to hostpassage. This may be done reiteratively as well.

It is another aspect of the invention to provide a plant to which aBacillus control agent has been applied. A plant to which a Bacilluscontrol agent has been applied is also referred to as a plant “treated”with a Bacillus control agent. In a preferred embodiment, the Bacilluscontrol agent is applied to the foliage of the plant. In a furtherpreferred embodiment, the phyllosphere of the plant is colonized by theBacillus control agent. In a further preferred embodiment the planttreated with a Bacillus control agent is a banana, a curcubit, a pecan,a sugar beet, a potato, or a geranium.

In one embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for a bananaplant treated with a Bacillus control agent. In another embodiment, thebanana plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides. In a further embodiment,the banana plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ(accession number NRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the banana plantis treated with Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment, thebanana plant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7(accession number NRRL B-30893). In each of these embodiments, thephyllosphere of the banana plant can be colonized by the Bacilluscontrol agent.

In another embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for acucurbit plant treated with a Bacillus control agent. In one embodiment,the cucurbit plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides. In a furtherembodiment, the cucurbit plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolateBmJ (accession number NRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the cucurbitplant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment,the cucurbit plant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7(accession number NRRL B-30893). In each of these embodiments, thephyllosphere of the cucurbit plant can be colonized by the Bacilluscontrol agent.

Another embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for a pecanplant treated with a Bacillus control agent. Inone embodiment, the pecanplant is treated with Bacillus mycoides. In a further embodiment, thepecan plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ (accessionnumber NRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the pecan plant is treatedwith Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment, the pecan plantis treated with Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7 (accession number NRRLB-30893). In each of these embodiments, the phyllosphere of the pecanplant can be colonized by the Bacillus control agent.

Another embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for ageranium plant treated with a Bacillus control agent. In one embodiment,the geranium plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides. In a furtherembodiment, the geranium plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolateBmJ (accession number NRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the geraniumplant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment,the geranium plant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7(accession number NRRL B-30893). In each of these embodiments, thephyllosphere of the geranium plant can be colonized by the Bacilluscontrol agent.

Another embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for astrawberry or a grape plant treated with a Bacillus control agent. Inone embodiment, the strawberry or the grape plant is treated withBacillus mycoides. In a further embodiment, the strawberry or the grapeplant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ (accession numberNRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the strawberry or the grape plantis treated with Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment, thestrawberry or the grape plant is treated with Bacillus mojavensisisolate 203-7 (accession number NRRL B-30893). In each of theseembodiments, the phyllosphere of the strawberry or the grape plant canbe colonized by the Bacillus control agent.

Another embodiment of this aspect of the invention provides for a wheatplant treated with a Bacillus control agent. In one embodiment, thewheat plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides. In a further embodiment,the wheat plant is treated with Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ (accessionnumber NRRL B-30890). In another embodiment, the wheat plant is treatedwith Bacillus mojavensis. In yet a further embodiment, the strawberry orthe grape plant is treated with Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7(accession number NRRL B-30893). In each of these embodiments, thephyllosphere of the wheat plant can be colonized by the Bacillus controlagent.

Embodiments of the invention include plants treated with the Bacilluscontrol agent as well as parts of the plants so treated. For example, abanana leaf or disc from a banana leaf treated with a Bacillus controlagent is contemplated in this embodiment. Similarly, a plant protoplast,plant spore or plant shoot or plant cell culture treated with a Bacilluscontrol agent is contemplated in this embodiment.

Another aspect of the invention provides for methods of screening forbiological control agents that induce systemic resistance to a diseasein a plant. Currently used means of demonstrating induction of SAR inplants include challenge assays in which distal untreated leaves arechallenged with a pathogen following a short priming period with aninducing agent on a primarily, spatially separated leaf or root system(Conrath, et al 2000, herein, incorporated by reference). Challengeassays, however, are time-consuming and difficult to adapt to screeningof multiple agents.

One embodiment of the invention provides for a method of screening for abiological control agent that induces systemic resistance in a plantcomprising contacting a plant sample with a biological control agent anddetecting the release of active oxygen species (AOS) in the sample.Biphasic production of AOS precedes induction of systemic resistance(Wolfe, et al. 2000) and therefore hydrogen peroxide production patternsserve as an indicator of SAR induction capability. In a preferredembodiment, the release of AOS is detected by a phenol red oxidationassay.

Another embodiment of the invention provides for a method of screeningfor a biological control agent that induces systemic resistance in aplant comprising contacting a plant sample with a biological controlagent and detecting for the presence of defense proteins, including, butnot limited to, chitinase, B-1,3-glucanse, and peroxidase.

One embodiment provides for a method of screening for a biologicalcontrol agent that induces systemic resistance in a plant comprisingcontacting a plant sample with a biological control agent and detectingfor the presence of chitinase in the sample. While certain chitinasesare present in plants that have not been induced for systemic acquiredresistance, overall levels of chitinase activity are increased in plantsthat have been treated to induce SAR. Additionally, certain isoforms ofchitinase have increased specific activity in plants treated to induceSAR.

The presence of chitinase can be determined by monitoring thedegradation of chitin by various methods. In one embodiment, thechitinase activity is determined by a glycol chitin plate assay. Glycolchitin plate assays can be performed by first extracting protein fromthe plant treated with the Bacillus control agent and then incubatingthe extract on an agarose plate containing glycol chitin infused with afluorescent brightener. The presence of non-fluorescent lytic zones areindicative of chitinase activity. Specific activity of the chitinase canbe determined by including a series of standards (Bargabus, R. L., etal., Physiol. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 61:289-298, 2002), herein incorporatedby reference). The presence of chitinase can also be determined bymonitoring a decrease in fluorescence against time of a solutioncontaining chitin and a fluorescence brightener, such as CalcofluorWhite M2R, to which a protein extract to be tested for chitinaseactivity has been added (Sampson M. N., et al, Microbiology,144:2189-2194 (1998), herein incorporated by reference). Additionalmethods of measuring chitinase activity include monitoring ofdegradation of fluorogenic chitinase substrates or radio-labeled chitinsubstrates (Sampson M. N., et al, Microbiology, 144:2189-2194 (1998)).The presence of chitinase may also be detected using immunoassays. Anyof the assays that monitor a detectable signal, such as fluorescence,may be performed in microtiter plates and are amenable to use in highthroughput screening.

A further embodiment provides for a method of screening for a biologicalcontrol agent that induces systemic resistance in a plant comprisingcontacting a plant sample with a biological control agent and detectingfor the presence of B-1,3-glucanase in the sample. While certainB-1,3-glucanase are present in plants that have not been induced forsystemic acquired resistance, overall levels of B-1,3-glucanase activityare increased in plants that have been treated to induce SAR.Additionally, certain isoforms of B-1,3-glucanase have increasedspecific activity plants treated to induce SAR.

The presence of B-1,3-glucanase can be determined by monitoring thedegradation of beta-glucan polysaccharide by various methods. In apreferred embodiment, the B1,3-glucanase activity is determined by ananiline blue plate assay. Aniline blue plate assays can be performed byfirst extracting protein from the plant treated with the Bacilluscontrol agent and then incubating the extract on an agarose platecontaining analine blue and laminarin. The presence of pink lytic zoneson a blue background are indicative of B-1,3-glucanase activity.Specific activity of the B1,3-glucanase can be determined by including aseries of standards (Bargabus, R. L., et al., Biological Control, InPress, herein incorporated by reference). Additional methods ofmeasuring B1,3-glucanase activity include monitoring of degradation offluorogenic B1,3-glucanase substrates (such as dansyl-labeled laminarin)or radio-labeled B-1,3-glucanase substrates. The presence ofB-1,3-glucanase may also be detected using immunoassays. Any of theassays that monitor a detectable signal, such as fluorescence, may beperformed in microtiter plates and are amenable to use in highthroughput screening.

A further embodiment of the invention provides for a method of screeningfor a biological control agent that induces systemic resistance in aplant comprising contacting a plant sample with a biological controlagent and detecting both the chitinase activity and the B-1,3-glucanaseactivity in the sample. In a preferred embodiment, the chitinaseactivity is determined by a glycol chitin plate assay and theB-1,3-glucanase activity is determined by an aniline blue plate assay.Other methods may be used to detect the activity of chitinase andB-1,3-glucanase as discussed above.

The methods of screening for biological control agents that inducesystemic resistance as described above may also be used to screenchemical control agents that induce systemic resistance.

The present invention further provides methods for inducing diseaseresistance to a plant pathogen in a plant or a plant part, wherein themethods lead to reduced phytotoxicity in the plant or the plant part. Insome embodiments, the method does not cause any phytotoxicity in theplant or plant part. Phytotoxicity is a problem often associated withmany biocontrol agents (Chase, Index for Fungicide and BactericideResearch at CFREC-Apopka, 1981 through 1993, MREC Research Index).Phytotoxicity can be classified into the following categories:fundamental phytotoxicity, oyerload phytotoxicity, cumulativephytotoxicity, combination phytotoxicity, placement phytotoxicity, andepisodic phytotoxicity. Phytotoxicity may result when the crop issensitive to the biocontrol agent, the agent is applied at a higher thanrecommended rate, the components in a biocontrol agent mixture interactto damage the crop, the biocontrol agent is applied during unusually hotweather, or the biocontrol agent is applied at sensitive growth stages.Common injury symptoms from a biocontrol agent application are chloroticspots on leaves in the upper canopy where plant contact with abiocontrol agent is the highest. The biocontrol agents of the presentinvention described herein can be applied to a plant, a plant part, orthe soil around the plant, inducing disease resistance against variousplant pathogens without causing any phytotoxicity. In some embodiments,the biocontrol agent of the present invention is applied at 1-100gram/acre rate or more with 3×10¹⁰ spores or cells per gram Bacillusmycoides isolate BmJ in the biocontrol agent. For example, thebiocontrol agent is applied at about 10 gram/acre, about 20 gram/acre,about 30 gram/acre, about 40 gram/acre, about 50 gram/acre, about 60gram/acre, about 70 gram/acre, about 80 gram/acre, about 90 gram/acre,about 100 gram/acre, or more with 3×10¹⁰ spores or cells per gramBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ in the biocontrol agent.

In addition, the biocontrol agents of the present invention describedherein can be used together with a second biocontrol agent to reachdesired disease control effects, wherein the second biocontrol agent ifused by itself can cause phytotoxicity in the plant before reaching thesame desired disease control effects. To reach the desired diseasecontrol effects, the biocontrol agents of the present invention and thesecond biocontrol agent can be used in mixtures, or in rotations. Insome embodiments, the desired disease control effects are reached due tothe synergistic effects of combining the biocontrol agents of thepresent invention and a second biocontrol agent, so the secondbiocontrol agent can be applied with reduced amount and/or less often.In some embodiments, the second biocontrol agent is a fungicide or abactericide.

Method of Producing Bacillus Spores

Previously no one has ever described a broth spore production media forB. mycoides. Published literatures in this field are mainly related toproducing fermentation products from B. mycoides, but not sporulation(e.g., Abdel-Naby, et. al. 1998. Production and Immobilization ofAlkaline Protease from Bacillus mycoides. Bioresource Technology 64:205-210., and Borah et. al. 2002. The influence of nutritional andenvironmental conditions on the accumulation of poly-β-hydroxybutyratein Bacillus mycoides RJL B-017. Journal of Applied Microbiology 92:776-783).

The present invention provides methods of producing Bacillus spores. Insome embodiments, the Bacillus species is B. mycoides. The invention isbased on the unexpected discovery that the absence of glucose or verylow concentration of glucose in the media promotes sporulation ofBacillus species, e.g., B. mycoides, and that Bacillus species, e.g., B.mycoides strain, does not sporulate when too much glucose is in themedium. In broth culture, B. mycoides forms chains of cells. In standardlaboratory broth media containing glucose such as Trypticase soy broth,B. mycoides (e.g., B mycoides J) forms cell chains that do notsporulate. Fresh cells or freeze dried cells of Bacillus species can beused in a biocontrol agent to induce disease resistance in a plant.However, fresh cells and freeze dried cells are not very stable andfreeze dried cell chains did not disperse effectively in water.

The general approach for inducing and optimizing sporulation in B.subtilis is to start with a laboratory media such as Difco sporulationmedia which contains protein and mineral salts and add glucose toachieve a high cell density before cells sporulate (e.g., Warriner etal., Enhanced Sporulation in Bacillus subtilis Grown on MediumContaining Glucose:Ribose. 1999, Letters in Applied Microbiology29:97-102). Another example used Difco sporulation media with glucoseadded in batch or fed batch culture is described in Clemente et. al.(Predicting Sporulation Events in a Bioreactor Using an Electronic Nose.2008, Biotechnology Bioengineering 101(3):545-552).

When we tried this approach by using a medium comprising a proteinsource, with added glucose, BmJ did not sporulate in any media withglucose concentration above about 1.5 grams per liter. With 1.5 g/lglucose or less BmJ would sporulate. The protein source could be eitherlaboratory type sources such as soy peptone or bulk commercial sourcessuch a soy meal or soy protein concentrates, rice protein or wheatprotein. Meat derived proteins may also be used unless one has to complywith organic rules. Higher concentrations of glucose at 3 g/l up to 50g/l produced cultures with very high cell density indicating glucoseutilization but these never sporulated. However BmJ would sporulate inprotein media with sucrose as the carbon source although assays ofsucrose at the termination of cultures showed that BmJ used very littlesucrose. It is also determined that BmJ would grow and sporulate withequivalent yield in protein media without any added glucose or sucrose.With these basic results, a series of experiments were conducted toevaluate different commercial protein sources and optimizeconcentrations of the other ingredients for cost and spore yield,Phosphate (used primarily to buffer media at pH 7), yeast extract andmineral to come up with the final recipe.

We tested many different protein sources and amounts in media andprovided there was minimal or no glucose. B. mycoides sporulate in allmedia. Therefore, our invention develops a low cost industriallysuitable broth media in which Bacillus species, e.g., the BmJ can growas cell chains, which form endospores and in which the cell chains andcells would disintegrate and release the spores, resulting in a cellfree dispersed spores that can be further recovered, dried andformulated. The spores disperse easily in water and spray uniformly.

Therefore, the methods comprise culturing Bacillus cells in a liquidproduction medium containing no glucose, or very low concentration ofglucose. In one embodiments, the concentration of glucose in the mediumis about 1.5 gram/liter, or less that about 1.5 gram/liter, for example,less than about 1.4 gram/liter, less than about 1.3 gram/liter, lessthan about 1.2 gram/liter, less than about 1.1 gram/liter, less thanabout 1.0 gram/liter, less than about 0.9 gram/liter, less than about0.8 gram/liter, less than about 0.7 gram/liter, less than about 0.6gram/liter, less than about 0.5 gram/liter, less than about 0.4gram/liter, less than about 0.3 gram/liter, less than about 0.2gram/liter, less than about 0.1 gram/liter, less than about 0.01gram/liter, less than about 0.001 gram/liter, or less.

The medium can comprise one or more protein sources. In someembodiments, the protein sources do not contain glucose, or contain verylow concentration of glucose so that the protein sources can provideenough amino acid supplies to the bacteria growth but do not raise theglucose concentration in the medium more than about 1.5 gram/liter.Optionally, the medium can comprise one or more carbon sources that donot contain glucose, or do not raise the glucose concentration in themedium more than about 1.5 gram/liter.

In some embodiments, the methods further comprise removing the resultingbacterial spores from the production medium. In embodiments, the methodsfurther comprise drying the bacterial spores, and, optionally, blendingthe bacterial spores with a carrier.

Non-limiting examples of the protein ingredient in the production mediuminclude soybean meal, soy flour, soy protein concentrate,bacteriological peptone, tryptone, tryptose, casein peptone, meatpeptone, proteose peptone, pancreatic digest of casein, pancreaticdigest of gelatin, pancreatic digest of soybean meal, papaic digest ofsoybean meal, peptic digest of animal tissue, acid hydrolyzate ofcasein, lactalbumin hydrolysate, meat extract powder, liver extractpowder, gelatin peptone, soya peptone, yeast extract powder, acidhydrolyzate of soy, beef extract powder, brain-heart infusion solids,gelatin, hemoglobin powder, skim milk, and combination thereof. In someembodiments, the protein ingredient comprises essential ingredients thatcan be found in one or more materials mentioned above.

The bacterial spores may be removed from the production medium by anymethods known in the art, for example, by means of continuous flowcentrifugation or filtration, such as those described in Gosh et al.,Isolation and Characterization of Superdormant Spores of BacillusSpecies, Journal of Bacteriology, March 2009, p. 1787-1797. Other basicmethods, such as batch centrifuge, vacuum filtration, etc., or any knownmethods for separating small solid particles from a liquid can be used.

The bacterial spores can be dried with or without the addition ofcarriers using conventional drying processes or methods. These dryingprocesses and methods include evaporation, freeze drying, tray drying,spray drying, fluidized-bed drying, and drum drying. The resulting drybacterial spores may be processed further, such as by milling orgranulation, to achieve a specific particle size or physical format.Carriers may be added after drying the bacterial spores.

Formulations

In some embodiments of the present invention, the bacterial spores ofthe present invention are blended with carriers. Carriers are inertformulation ingredients added to the bacterial spores that may improvethe efficacy, recovery, or physical properties of the spores. They canalso aid in packaging and administration. The carriers can be added incombination or individually. The carriers are bulking agents,anti-caking agents, protectants, and/or anti-oxidation agents in someembodiments of the present invention. Some examples of useful carriersinclude sugars (e.g., lactose, trehalose, sucrose), polysaccharides(e.g., starches, maltodextrins, methylcelluloses), salts (e.g., sodiumchloride, calcium carbonate, sodium citrate), proteins (e.g., wheyprotein, peptides, gums), lipids (e.g., lecithin, vegetable oils,mineral oils), and silicates (e.g., clays, amorphous silica,fumed/precipitated silicas, silicate salts). In one embodiment, thecarrier used is attapulgite clay. In some embodiments, the carriers areadded after removal of the bacterial spores from the production medium,during drying, and/or after drying.

In some embodiments of the present invention, the bacterial cells belongto the Bacillus genus. Spore-forming bacterial species within this genusthat may be useful as biopesticides include Bacillus mycoides, Bacillussubtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacilluspumilis, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus thuringiensis. The presentinvention, according to one embodiment, involves Bacillus mycoides cellsfrom isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890.

In some embodiments, the dried bacterial spores can be used to makewettable power formulations. For example, the spores can be mixed withwetting agents or emulsifiers (e.g., surfactant). An emulsifier (alsoknown as an emulgent) is a substance that stabilizes an emulsion byincreasing its kinetic stability. In some embodiments, the wettingagents are soil wetting agents, such as clays. For example, the wettingagent is selected from the group consisting of attapulgite clay,kaolin-type clays, and Barden clays.

In addition, it can be an advantage to have a liquid formulation ofmicrobial spores such as BmJ rather than a powder. Liquid will not formdust and can be more easily poured/measured and may mix better with someother products in tank mix.

The issue with liquid formulations is to find a carrier in which thespores are stable. In water based carriers microbial spores maygerminate and resulting vegetative cells die or spores may not be stablein water. Oils can be suitable liquid carriers because the oils containno water (0 water activity) and spore germination is inhibited. However,to mix with water the formulation also needs to contain an emulsifier todisperse the oil in water to spray. In such formulations spores may beadversely affected by either the type of oil and or the emulsifier.

The present invention provides liquid formulations of Bacillus spores.In some embodiments, the Bacillus is B. mycoides. In some embodiments,the B. mycoides is the BmJ isolate. The liquid formulations comprise oneor more oils as carriers. The oil can be any suitable one that makes thespores stable. For example, the oil may comprise a solvent-refined lightparaffinic distillate (CAS #64741-89-5). The solvent-refined lightparaffinic distillate may comprise fatty acid alcohol C12, C13, and/orC14. In some embodiments, the fatty acid alcohol is ethoxylated. In someembodiments, the carrier is Sunspray 7E (EPA Registration No.00086200008).

In some embodiments, the formulation is made by simply blending dry BmJspore powder in the oil to achieve the desired spore concentration. Forexample, spores powder was blended in the oil to a concentration ofabout 1×10⁶, about 1×10⁷, about 1×10⁸, 1×10⁹, 1×10¹⁰ or more spores perml oil, for example, about 1×10⁹ spores per ml oil. Spores are stable inthis formulation when stored at more than about 3 hours, about 4 hours,about 5 hours, or more at 50° C., or for more than 6 months, more than 7months, more than 8 months, more than 9 months, more than 10 months, ormore than a year at 37° C., or for more than 10 months, more than 1year, more than 1.5 years, or more than 2 years at room temperature(22-25° C.).

This formulation can then be diluted in water and sprayed. For example,oil formulation of 1×10⁹ spores per ml can be diluted 1:100 in water fora final concentration of 1×10⁷ spores per ml in the final spray.

In some other embodiments, the carrier is a methylated vegetable oil.Vegetable oils, saturated or unsaturated, edible or inedible, include,but are not limited to, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, peanutoil, bean oil, linseed oil, tung oil, and soybean oil. Vegetable oilscan be methylated to make it emulsifiable.

The wettable powder formulation of and oil formulation of BmJ spores canequivalent results in field trials against pathogens.

The present invention according to one embodiment has a productionmedium with a pH of 2.0 to 12.0, for example, about pH 2.0, about pH3.0, about pH 4.0, about pH 5.0, about pH 6.0, about pH 7.0, about ph8.0, about pH 9.0, about pH 10.0, about pH 11.0, or about pH 12.0. Inanother embodiment, the production medium has a pH of 4.0 to 10.0. Inone embodiment, the production medium has a pH of 6.0 to 8.0.Preferably, in yet another embodiment the production medium has a pH of6.5-7.5.

The present invention in another embodiment produces bacterial sporeswith a final bacterial spore concentration after drying of at least1×10E0 spores per gram, at least 1×10E1 spores per gram, at least 1×10E2spores per gram, at least 1×10E3 spores per gram, at least 1×10E4 sporesper gram, at least 1×10E5 spores per gram, at least 1×10E6 spores pergram, at least 1×10E7 spores per gram, at least 1×10E8 spores per gram,at least 1×10E9 spores per gram, at least 1×10E10 spores per gram, atleast 1×10E11 spores per gram, or at least 1×10E12 spores per gram.

The spores produced by using the present application can be used formany purposes. In some embodiments, The spores can be used in abiopesticides formulation to control one or more plant diseases, such asthose described in Bargabus et al., Physiological and Molecular PlantPathology, (2002), 61:289-298, and Bargabus et al., Biological Control(2004) 30:342-350. In some embodiments, the spores can be used forculturing Bacillus mycoides cells which can further be used to produceuseful productions, such as polyhydroxybutyrate according to the methodsdescribed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,129,068 and 7,273,733, and alkalineprotease as described in Abdel-Naby et al., 1998, Production andimmobilization of alkaline protease from Bacillus mycoides, BioresourceTechnology, 64(3):205-210.

The present methods can be modified to produce greater cell mass priorto sporulation to give a greater spore yield of Bacillus species, suchas Bacillus mycoides. In some embodiments, the methods comprise growingthe Bacillus species in a medium comprising one or more protein sources,with a feed of a low concentration of glucose for an initial period ofthe culture. The feed can be continuous or pulsed. The total glucose fedto the culture can be greater than 1.5 g/l over time, but the dynamicconcentration would never exceed 1.5 g/l. The initial period of feedingglucose maybe decided based on the fermentation process. For example,the initial period can be the first 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours, 48hours, or more of a 72 hour fermentation.

The invention having been described, it will be apparent to ordinarilyskilled artisans that numerous changes and modifications can be madethereto without departing from the spirit or the scope of the appendedclaims.

All publications and patents cited herein are expressly incorporated byreference for all purposes.

This invention is further illustrated by the following examples thatshould not be construed as limiting. Those of skill in the art should,in light of the present disclosure, appreciate that many changes can bemade to the specific embodiments which are disclosed and still obtain alike or similar result without departing from the spirit or scope of theinvention.

Deposit Information

A sample of B. mycoides isolate J and Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7have been deposited with the Agricultural Research Service CultureCollection located at the National Center for Agricultural UtilizationResearch, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1815 North University Street, Peoria, Ill. 61604. B. mycoides isolate Jhas been assigned the depository accession number NRRL B-30890. Bacillusmojavensis has been assigned the depository accession number NRRLB-30893.

To satisfy the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to certifythat the deposit of the isolated strains of the present invention meetsthe criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809, Applicants hereby make thefollowing statements regarding the deposited B. mycoides isolate J andBacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7:

1. During the pendency of this application, access to the invention willbe afforded to the Commissioner upon request;

2. Upon granting of the patent the strain will be available to thepublic under conditions specified in 37 CFR 1.808;

3. The deposit will be maintained in a public repository for a period of30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the enforceable lifeof the patent, whichever is longer;

4. The viability of the biological material at the time of deposit willbe tested; and

5. The deposit will be replaced if it should ever become unavailable.

Access to this deposit will be available during the pendency of thisapplication to persons determined by the Commissioner of Patents andTrademarks to be entitled thereto under 37 C.F.R. §1.14 and 35 U.S.C.§122. Upon allowance of any claims in this application, all restrictionson the availability to the public of deposited strains will beirrevocably removed by affording access to the deposited strains

EXAMPLES Materials and Methods

Preparation of Bacillus Spores

The preferred embodiment for commercial use is to produce spores as theactive ingredient. Spores are more efficient to produce and more stablethan fresh cell or freeze dried cell preparations. B. mycoides isolate J(aka BmJ) spores are prepared in a fermentation process, recovered fromthe fermentation broth and dried to create a spore powder. This sporepowder is then formulated by blending with attapulgite or other suitableclay materials or may be suspended in other carriers such as mineraloil. Spore preparations are produced according to the following steps:

1. Culture maintenance and storage

2. Inoculum preparation

3. Fermentation

4. Spore recovery

5. Drying

6. Formulation

Culture Maintenance and Storage

The “J” isolate of B. mycoides having accession number NRRL B-30890 wasone of a number of bacillus strains isolated as single colonies fromdilution plating of sugar beet leaf washes. A “master” stock of thissingle colony isolate was prepared by plating on potato dextrose agar(PDA), aseptically washing the plate with a sterile cryo fluidconsisting of 10% glycerol and 1% trypticase soy broth. Harvested cellsare stored in 1.0 ml aliquots at minus 80 degrees C. All subsequentcultures of the J isolate are traceable to this master stock preparedfrom the single colony “J” isolate.

Working stock cultures are prepared from the master stock as follows. Adrop of master stock is used to inoculate trypticase soy broth which isincubated with shaking for 24 hours at 25 degrees C. This broth is usedto inoculate a set of potato dextrose agar (PDA) or trypticase soy agar(TSA) plates which are incubated at 25° C. for three to five days. ThePDA and/or TSA can be produced using recipes well known to those skilledin the art. Plates are aseptically washed with sterile cryo fluid andthe wash is dispensed to sterile 1.0 ml tubes and stored at minus 25° C.Identity of working stock cultures as B. mycoides relies on distinctivespiral colony morphology (Franco et al., Colony shape as a genetic traitin the pattern-forming Bacillus mycoides, BMC Microbiology 2002, 2:1-15)and on assays for induction of systemic resistance in sugar beets. B.mycoides colony forms a spiral or swirl shape on agar and will either beclockwise or counterclockwise depending on the strain.

Inoculum Preparation

A working stock culture is thawed and used to inoculate a first stageinoculum culture of BmJ Production Medium (described below) ortrypticase soy (TS) broth typically 100 ml in 250 ml flasks which areincubated at 25 degrees C. for 24 to 36 hours. Typically two 100 mlcultures are used to inoculate 10 liter bench production cultures. Forfull production scale cultures, the first stage inoculum is used to astart a second stage inoculum typically in 2 to 10 liters of either BmJProduction Medium or TS broth.

BmJ Production Medium

BmJ Production Medium consists of:

grams per liter Finely milled defatted soybean meal 10 Glucose 1.5 Yeastextract 0.25 K₂HPO₄ 2.5 KH₂PO₄ 1.1 MgSO₄•7H₂O 0.25 NaCl 0.1 MnCl₂ 0.01

All ingredients are technical or commercial grade. The pH should be6.5-7.5 after autoclaving. Other commercial protein ingredients such astoasted soy flour, or soy protein concentrates may be substituted at 4to 10 grams/liter of media.

Fermentation

Fermentation for test or commercial use may be conducted in any suitablefermentation vessel designed to be steam pressure sterilized andequipped for agitation and introduction of air. Culture media for sporeproduction is typically the production media described above, howeverany suitable media containing sugar and protein sources and othernutrients that support cell growth and sporulation, but having about 1.5g/l glucose, or less than about 1.5 g/l glucose may be used.Fermentations are typically conducted at 25 C to 30 C for 36 to 96hours, typically 72 hours. Final spore concentration in the medium isdetermined by microscope hemocytometer count or as colony forming unitsby dilution and plating on TSA or PDA.

Spore Recovery and Drying

After completion of the fermentation, spores are recovered using acontinuous flow centrifuge, then air dried and milled to a fine powder.Any other suitable drying method with a temperature below that whichwill damage or kill the spores can be used. Generally the treatment isless than about 65° C. for a few minutes (e.g., about 1 min, about 2mins, about 3 mins, about 4 mins, about 5 mins, about 6 mins, about 7mins, about 8 mins, about 9 mins, about 10 mins, or more), or less than50° C. with longer exposure (e.g., about 5 mins, about 10 mins, about 15mins, about 20 mins, or more). Spray drying can be used instead. Thisdry powder is the active ingredient formulated in clay or other carrierfor use. The final spore powder may contain 1×10E10 to more than 1×10E12spores per gram. Spores may also be recovered by filtration or othersuitable means and dried under any conditions that do not kill thespores.

Formulation

Dry spore powder is blended with a carrier for application to plants.The carrier aids suspension of the spores in water and provides a volumeof material that is easy to use. Often, the carrier (e.g., attapulgiteclay, kaolin-type clay, barden clay, or any suitable type of oil) isblended with spores for a final spore concentration of 3×10E10 sporesper gram. Application of this formulation was typically 25 to 125 gramsper acre depending on the crop and disease.

In the following examples where BmJ spores were applied, the BmJ sporeswere in a wettable powder formulation, or an oil suspension formulation,at the indicated concentrations.

Example 1 Isolation and Testing of Bacillus Mycoides Isolate BmJ

Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ) was isolated from sugar beet leaves asfollows. Leaf samples from sugar beets plants that had reduced infectionby Cercospora beticola (CB), the fungal pathogen that is the causalagent of Cercospora leaf spot, were collected from a sugar beet field inSydney Mont. The leaves were washed and pasteurized. Endospores wereisolated from the pasteurized wash. The endospores were grown and testedfor the ability to induce resistance to CB in sugar beets. One of theisolates, BmJ, was selected for use as a biological control agentbecause it provided the best control of isolates tested in earlyglasshouse trials.

In preliminary studies, a spontaneous Rifampicin resistant mutant ofBmJ, that did not differ in growth rate or disease control capabilitiesfrom BmJ, was utilized in repeated attempts to isolate BmJ at 3, 6, 9,and 18 d post treatment from distal untreated and treated sugar beetleaves and petioles (Jacobsen, unpublished work). Due to the low levelof BmJ populations on treated leaf surfaces and the lack of Rifampicinmutants isolated from distal untreated leaves, it was concluded that thelevel of disease control from BmJ treatment could not be due to directeffects of BmJ on CB (Bargabus, et al., Physiological an Molecular PlantPathology, 61:289-298 (2002), herein incorporated by reference).

Example 2 Testing of BmJ in Growth Chamber Experiments

BmJ Preparation

B. mycoides isolate J (BmJ) cells, originally isolated from sugar beetleaves from Sidney, Mont. in 1994, were stored at −80° C. in 10%glycerol and 1% tryptic soy broth (TSB) (Difco). For fresh cellpreparations, BmJ was cultured in TSB for 48 h (28° C.). Cells werecentrifuged 15 min at 10000 g (4° C.), washed with sterile water (2×),then resuspended in distilled water. The optical density was adjusted toA600 1.0, then diluted 1:2 based on optical density curves confirmed bydilution plating. This optical density and dilution provided forapproximately 1×10⁸ cfu/ml. The precise number of cells was notdetermined due to the chain-forming nature of the organism. Forexperiments testing dead cells, BmJ was autoclaved in water for 30 minfollowing washing. Autoclaved cells were tested for lack of viability byplating 100 microliters onto three plates of 50 tryptic soy agar (TSA).For field studies, either fresh BmJ cells prepared as described above ora spray-dried formulation, containing 2×10¹³ cfu/g before dilution,prepared by Chris Hanson Labs (Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.A.) were used.Fungal Culture

C. beticola (GB) (wild type isolate EC3, isolated in Sidney, Mont. in1996) was grown on V-8 agar for a minimum of two weeks with exposure tofluorescent or natural light for at least one week to promotesporulation. Spores were harvested at approximately 30 days afterplating in 0.1 carboxymethyl cellulose by scraping with a cotton swab,counted with a haemocytometer and adjusted to 1×10⁴ spores/ml.

Plant Culture

Sugar beet varieties Holly Hybrid (HH) 88 (hybrid) and Seedex 920002(inbred) were seeded into flats for germination, transplanted into 4″pots after I week, and grown in the glasshouse for 6 weeks in MSU mix (⅓sand, ⅓ peat and ⅓ topsoil plus the wetting agent Aquagrow 2000,Aquatrols, Chemy Hill, N.J.). Plants were maintained at 24±2° C. andwere watered daily and fertilized twice a week to maintain vigorousgrowth. Photoperiod was 16 h light and 8 h dark.

Growth Chamber experiments

For growth chamber experiments, the leaf penultimate to the oldest twotrue leaves of sugar beet plants, in replicates of 10, was treated withBmJ, Acibenzolar-5-methyl (ASM, 50 ppm a.i.; ActigardS50 WG, Syngenta,Greensboro, N.C.), or dead BrnJ in 3-glucan with an aerosol sprayer.After drying, the treated leaf was covered with a plastic bag to ensurespatial separation from CB. The susceptible sugar beets were incubatedfor three days which was previously determined to be the timing thatprovided the best level of disease control [5], at which time theremainder of the leaves were challenged with the fungal pathogen CB (104spores ml-′), which was applied to near run-off using an aerosolsprayer. After treatment, plants were transferred to a 28° C. growthchamber equipped with plastic tents and humidifiers. Plants were kept at100 humidity for 72 h following inoculation with CB. Disease severitywas calculated according to the KWS scale [20] and disease reduction wasdetermined for the various inducing agents at 14 and 21 days postinoculation.

To determine the effectiveness of BmJ at reducing disease severity ofCercospora leaf spot on sugar beet while spatially separated from CB,the distal untreated leaves of BmJ-treated plants were challenged withCB 3 d post treatment. ASM and dead BmJ in 10 (3-glucan were also usedas treatments before fungal challenge as positive and negative controls,respectively. All plants were rated using the KWS (1-9) scale at 14 and21d post challenge.

Results

The more susceptible of the two cultivars of sugar beet tested (HH88, ahybrid), resulted in the greatest systemic reduction in disease severity(−80% reduction) following priming with BmJ (Table 1). The decreasedoccurrence of leaf spot symptoms was statistically significant incomparison to the negative control (dead BmJ treatment), but notstatistically different from the 63.6% reduction resulting from ASMtreatment (Table 1). Priming HH88 sugar beets with virulent CB did notstatistically reduce disease symptoms (Table 1). The inbred sugar beetcultivar (Seedex 920002) was less susceptible than its hybridcounterpart, and the overall disease severity was lower. With the inbredcultivar, BmJ was less effective than ASM-pretreatment, however theapproximate 2% difference was not statistically significant (Table 1).The 66.7% reduction in disease severity noted with the inbred varietyfollowing BmJ treatment was statistically higher when compared to thenegative (dead BmJ) control pretreatment (Table 1). Dead BmJ cells inp-glucan were not effective at controlling disease when applied toeither cultivar when compared to untreated controls (data not shown) andplants not challenged with CB showed no infection (Bargabus, et al.,Physiological an Molecular Plant Pathology, 61:289-298 (2002)).

TABLE 1 Systemic disease control of Cercospoa leaf spot on two differentcultivars of sugar beet using B. mycoides isolate BmJ andacibenzolar-S-methyl in glasshouse experiments Disease Severity HH88^(a)Seedex^(a) % Reduction at 21 DPC^(b) Treatment^(c) 14 DPC 21 DPC 14 DPC21 DPC HH88^(a) Seedex^(a) Control^(d) 5.76 14.34 0.32 0.48 n.r. n.r. C.beticola 5.24 14.10 n.d. n.d. n.r. n.r. Acibenzolar-S-methyl 0.76 5.260.16 0.17 63.6 64.6 B. mycoides 1.03 2.94 0.13 0.16 79.5 66.7 LSD(0.05)^(e) 2.87 3.78 0.09 0.12 n.d. n.d. ^(a)Holly Hybrid 88 (HH88,hybrid) and Seedex 920002 (Seedex, inbred) were the two sugar beetcultivars used in glasshouse experiments. ^(b)DPC = days post challengewith C. betieo/a ^(c)Plants were treated with dead B. mycoides isolateBmJ in (3-glucan (control), C. betieola (virulent on HH88 and Seedex),acibenzolar-S-methyl, or live B. myeoides isolate BmJ on one leaf, thenchallenged 3 days later with e. betieo/a, the fungal pathogen, on thedistal untreated leaves. ^(d)Control = dead B. myeoides isolate BmJcells applied with (3-glucan. ^(e)LSD = least significant difference(probability = 0.05).

Example 3 Testing of BmJ in Field Studies

Field Studies

Field studies were conducted at the Eastern Agricultural Research Centerin Sidney, Mont. from 1996 through 2003. Sugar beet variety ‘Beta 1996’was planted the first year, VDH 66140 was planted the second year, HH88the third year, KW2262 the fourth year and Beta 2185 the fifth, sixth,and seventh years. All cultivars were equally susceptible to C. beticolainfection (BetaSeed, Shakopee, Minn., U.S.A.). A spray-dried formulationof BmJ, suspended in water (10⁸ cfu/ml), was used the first four years.In the last two years, freshly grown, washed cells were harvested from a24 h tryptic soy broth culture grown at room temperature and prepared asdescribed above, and applied to the plants. Fungicide treatmentsincluded triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTFI, SuperTin, Griffin L.L.C.),propiconazole (Tilt, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc) and tetraconazole(Eminent, Sipeam Agro USA Inc.) that were applied at 390, 253 and 876 gai ha⁻¹, respectively. All treatments were applied at 1761 ha⁻¹ using aCO₂ backpack sprayer with a 4-nozzle boom starting at disease onset andcontinued at 14 day intervals for a total of four sprays. Plots werearranged “in a randomized complete block design. with six replicates pertreatment. Each block consisted of 6 rows (9.2 m long) spaced 56 cmapart, resulting in a plant density of approximately 100 000 plantsha⁻¹. The four middle rows from each block were treated, leaving theoutside two rows of each block as border rows. One middle row from eachblock for each treatment was harvested for yield data. Diseaseevaluations were taken four times during the growing season and 100leaves/replicate were rated using the KWS scale from 1 to 9 [20]. Areaunder the disease progress curve (AUDPC) was calculated for treated anduntreated plants and percent disease control was determined as follows:1-(diseases severity of untreated controls/disease severity of treatedplants)*100.

To examine the efficacy of BmJ under field conditions, the biologicalcontrol agent treatment was extended to the field. Several fungicidetreatments were introduced 10 to make comparisons between BmJ andcurrent control methods. The KWS scale was used to rate CB diseaseseverity for consistency with glasshouse data.

Results

Field application of BmJ resulted in disease control superior tountreated control plants (38-91% reduction) and equivalent to thechemical disease control triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH; 253 g/ha) in 2(1997 and 2000) of the 6 years (Table 2). BmJ also produced similardisease control to propiconazole (Tilt; 104 g/ha) in 2 (1996 and 1997)of 3 years (Table 2). BmJ, applied in conjunction with Tilt,significantly improved CB disease control over Tilt alone in 1997.Overall, under all conditions tested, BmJ alone or in combination withTilt was just as effective against CB as TPTH, the most widely usedfungicide (Table 2). Measurement of the area under the disease progresscurve (AUDPC) over 5 years for untreated controls showed that alltreatments worked just as well under severe disease conditions as theydid in years with less disease pressure (Table 2) (Bargabus, et al.,Physiological an Molecular Plant Pathology, 61: 289-298 (2002)).

TABLE 2 Multi year analysis of Cercospora leaf spot reduction in thefield using B. mycoides isolate BmJ, triphenyltin hydroxide andpropiconazole or tetraconazole Disease Reduction by Year^(a) Treatment1996^(b) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 B. mycoides  62  81  51 66 91 38 TPTH(390 g a.i.ha⁻¹)  81  90  81 94 72 88^(d) B. mycoides + Tilt  78  89  7697 91 80^(c) (253 g a.i.ha⁻¹) Tilt (253 g a.i.ha⁻¹)  68  72  82 n.d.n.d. n.d. LSD (0-05)^(e)  14  13  21 14 34 15 AUDPC^(f) 330 220 176 3017 73 ^(a)Percent disease control in untreated plots was zero. ^(b)Sugarbeet variety ‘Beta 1996’ was planted in 1996, variety VDH 66140 wasplanted in 1997, variety HH88 was planted in 1998, variety KW2262 wasplanted in 1999, and variety ‘Beta 2185’ was planted in 2000 and 2001,all of which are equally susceptible to C. betieo/a (BetaSeed).^(c)Fungicide treatment in 2001 was Eminent instead of TPTH. ^(d)in theyear 2001, B. myeoides was applied with tetraconazole (Eminent) (876 ga.i. hao,) instead of propaconazole (Tilt). ^(e)lSD = least significantdifference (probability = 0.05). ^(f)AUDPC = area under the diseaseprogress curve for C. betieo/a. AUDPC represents the disease severityduring the field treatment years in untreated controls (higher number =more disease). n.d. = no data.

Example 4 Disease Reduction Capabilities of B. Mycoides and B. PumulisIsolates

Bacterial Cultures

Bacillus myeoides isolate J (BmJ) was originally isolated from thephylioplane of sugar beet. B. pumilus isolates 203-11.341-21-15.203-6,341-20-14, 241-20-1,203-3, 203-4, and 341-16-5 and B. mojavensis isolate203-7 were isolated from embryos of germinating sugar beet seeds. B.pumilus isolates BMHSE-33 and BMH5E-40 were isolated from the sugar beetrhizosphere. All isolates were stored at −80′C in 10% glycerol and 1′%tryptic soy broth (Difco). For fresh cell preparations, the bacilli werecultured in tryptic soy broth for 48 hours at 28° C. Cells werecentrifuged 15 min at 10,000 g (4° C.). washed with sterile water (2×),and resuspended in distilled water. The optical density was adjusted toA₆₀₀=1.0, and diluted 1:2 to obtain approximately 1×10⁸ cfu/ml.

Fungal Culture

Cercospora beticola (CB) isolate EC3 (isolated in Sidney. Mont. in 1996)was grown on V-8 agar far a minimum of two weeks with exposure tofluorescent or natural light for at least one week to promotesporulation. Spores were harvested approximately 30 days. after platingin 0.1%, carboxymethylcellulose by scraping with a cotton swab, countedwith a hemocytometer and adjusted to 1×10⁴ spores/ml.

Disease Control Assays

Sugar beet cultivars Seedex 900012 and Holly Hybrid 88 in replicates of10, were treated with a Bacillus mycoides strains, a Bacillus pumulusstrain, acibenzolar-5-methyl (ASM, 50 ppm a.i. in distilled water.Actigard, 50 WG, Syngenta. Greensboro, N.C.) or distilled water with anaerosol sprayer to the leaf penultimate to the oldest true leaf. Thisleaf was then immediately bagged to ensure spatial separation from C.beticola, which was applied 3 days later at a rate of 1×10⁴ spores/ml tonear run-off on the remaining leaves using an aerosol sprayer. The sugarbeets were kept at 28+/−2° C. and placed at 100% relative humidity forthe first 48-72 hours, post-treatment. Plants were kept 28+/−2° C. untildisease symptoms developed and were rated for disease at 21 dayspost-inoculation using the KWS scale, which rates percent diseaseseverity on a scale of 0-9 (Kleinwanzler, 1970).

Results

Of the 14 different treatments applied to sugar beet cultivars Seedex900012 and Holly Hybrid 88, four resulted in 50% disease reduction. Theeffective strains included BmJ, B. mojavensis isolate 203-7, and B.pumilus isolate 203-6 while the chemical inducer of systemic acquiredresistance, ASM, also controlled disease. B. pumilus isolates 241-20-1and 13MI-15E-40 reduced Cercospora leaf spot symptoms to a statisticallysignificant level (Table 3) (Bargabus, et al., Biological Control, InPress (2004) herein incorporated by reference).

TABLE 3 Disease reduction capabilities of a pool of B. pumulis isolates,B. mycoides isolate BmJ, ASM, and water. Disease severity at 21 dayspost challenge with C. beticola Treatment HH88 Seedex water 8.00 ^(a)7.70 ^(ab) 203-3 5.82 ^(a) 5.58 ^(b)  203-4 6.95 ^(a) 7.65 ^(ab) 203-61.86 ^(b) 1.50 ^(c ) 203-7 2.38 ^(b) 2.46 ^(c ) 203-11 7.10 ^(a) 5.90^(b)  BMH5E-33 6.42 ^(a) 6.60 ^(b)  BMH5E-40  5.14 ^(ab) 5.45 ^(bc)341-20-14 5.86 ^(a) 9.00 ^(a ) 341-20-15 6.10 ^(a) 6.48 ^(b)  241-20-1 5.28 ^(ab) 4.66 ^(bc) 341-16-5 6.51 ^(a) 6.40 ^(ab) BmJ 2.73 ^(b) 2.56^(c ) ASM 2.93 ^(b) 2.70 ^(c )

Example 5 Determining Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance inPlants by Presence of Chitinase

Protein Extraction

For protein extractions, leaves distal to the treated leaves werecollected from plants at 6 days post treatment with the live and deadBmJ, ASM, or water. One leaf per replicate was collected for eachtreatment and immediately placed in buffer (150 mm NaCl, 25 mm MES, pH6-2). Apoplast extractions were collected as described by Klement [21]having substituted buffer (150 mM NaCl, 25 mm MES. pH 6.2) for water.

Western Analysis of Apoplastic Proteins

Apoplast samples were acetone precipitated (3:1 v/v), boiled in SDSsample buffer for 2 min, and resolved (1.5 ug per lane) (12%SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) gel) for 45 min (200 V) atpH 8.3 using midrange molecular standards (Sigma) for molecular weightdetermination. Proteins were then transferred to polyvinylidene fluoridemembranes (Millipore) for 1 hour (100 V) in 25 mm Tris, 192 mm glycine,and 20% (vlv) methanol (pH 8.3) using a BioRad mini-blot apparatus [13].Membranes were blocked with 3% BSA for 1 hour, incubated in primaryantibody (anti-chitinase, diluted 1:5000) (Syngeta, Greensboro, N.C.,U.S.A.) in 1 BSA for 1 hour, followed by incubation in secondaryantibody (peroxidase conjugated, diluted 1:10000) (Sigma). Colorimetricdetection was performed using the 3-amino-9-ethylcarbazole (AEC)staining kit (Sigma). Loading equality was demonstrated with silverstaining [26].

Determination of Chitinase Activity Following Non-Reducing PAGE

Apoplastic protein samples (1.5 ug per lane) were resolved on a 12%polyacrylamide gel containing 0.01% glycol chitin. Followingelectrophoresis, the gel was gently shaken for 2 h (3rC) in 100 mMsodium acetate buffer, pH 5.0 containing 1% (vlv) triton X-100. The gelwas then stained with 0.01% calcofluor white M2R in 500 mm Tris-HCl, pH8.9 for 5 min. The gel was quickly rinsed 3× with distilled water, thensoaked overnight in the dark in distilled water. Chitinase isoforms werevisualized as lytic bands under an uv light source [50]. Sizecomparisons were made between active isoforms and isoforms detected bywestern analysis using mid-range molecular markers (Sigma).

Chitinase Specific Activity Determination by Plate Assay Sodiumphosphate buffer (pH 5.0, 0.01 M) containing 1 agarose and 0.1% glycolchitin was added to a 9 cm diameter glass petri dish. Wells, 3 mmdiameter, were excised from the agarose (three per sample for each ofthe three replicates per treatment). Dilutions of apoplastic protein(0.7, 0.35, and 0.23 ug) and chitinase standards (chitinase fromStreptomycesgriseus Sigma) were loaded into the wells. The plate wasincubated at 37° C. for 24 h. Following the incubation, 50 ml of 500mMTris-HCl (pH 8.9) containing 0.01% fluorescent brightener was added tothe plate and incubated for 10 min. The plate was then quickly rinsed 3×with water, flooded with water, and destained overnight in the dark.Non-fluorescent lytic regions on a fluorescent background were measuredwhile the plate was on an uv light source. Specific activity (mg ofN-acetyl-n-glucosamine released /hr /mg of apoplastic protein) wasdetermined by comparison of the diameters of the lytic regions for thestandards and the lytic regions for the apoplastic protein samples [55].Results

Analysis of PR-protein production was used to help evaluate thehypothesis that BmJ induced systemic acquired resistance to CB. Aprotein extract from leaves distal to the treated leaves was prepared asdescribed above. A polyclonal antibody to tobacco chitinase (provided bySyngenta, Greensboro, N.C.) bound to several putative chitinases insugar beet following treatment with BmJ, ASM and water. As a means ofdetermining which isoforms were potentially involved in sugar beetdefense responses, the activity of the isoforms was observed followingnon-reducing PAGE. Certain isoforms showed increased activity whileothers appeared to have reduced activity in sugar beet followingBmJ-treatment. There was equal loading in the PAGE analyses, asdemonstrated when the apoplastic protein samples were also run on aseparate polyacrylamide gel, then silver stained. One of the isoformsproduced in response to BmJ-treatment, but lacking in the water-treatedplants, was also found following ASM treatment, which is known to induceplant systemic resistance responses. The overall changes in specificactivity of chitinase in sugar beet following treatment with ASM, liveand dead BmJ and water were determined. Even though ASM-treatmentresulted in fewer active isoforms being produced than the BmJ-treatment,the specific activity level was statistically equal (Table 4). Both liveBmJ and ASM treatments resulted in statistically higher chitinasespecific activity that was nearly twice that observed with water or deadBmJ treatment (Table 4).

TABLE 4 Systemic sugar beet apoptastic pathogenesis-related proteinactivity six days post treatment with line and dead B. mycoides isolateBmJ, acibenzolar-S-methyl and water Specific Activity TreatmentChitinase^(a) Beta-glycanase^(b) Peroxidase^(c) Water 0.46 36.1 42.8Live B. mycoides 1.02 77.9 61.6 Acibenzolar-S-methyl 1.26 198.6 71.4Dead B. mycoides 0.45 37.7 26.8 LSD (0.05)^(d) 0.21 36.1 12.2^(a)Chitinase specific activity expressed as milligrams of.N-acetyl-n-glucosamine released per hour per milligram of apoplasticprotein and is the mean of the data from three plants per treatmentreplicated three times. ^(b)Beta-glucanase specific activity expressedas micrograms of glucose released per minute per milligram of apoplasticprotein and is the mean of three plants per treatment replicate threetimes. ^(c)peroxidase specific activity expressed as the changes inabsorbance (470 nm) per minute per milligram of apoplastic protein andis the mean of three plants per treatment replicated three times.^(d)LSD = least significant difference (probability = 0.05).

Example 6 Determining Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance inPlants by Presence of B-1,3-Glucanase

Detection of B-1.3-Glucanase Activity

Apoplastic proteins for each treatment (3.0 ug) were separated usingacidic PAGE conditions as described by Reisfeld et al [39], with thefollowing modification. In the running buffer, L-alanine was substitutedfor B-alanine with a final pH of 3.8 rather than the prescribed 4.3,allowing for better separation of the isoforms. Following separation,the gels were incubated in 0.1 M citrate buffer (pH 4.8) containing 250mg laminarin per 100 ml of buffer at room temperature for 20 min. Thegels were then transferred to 0.1% Congo red and incubated overnightwith constant shaking at room temperature. The gels were thentransferred to destaining solution (1 M NaOH) and incubated overnight atroom temperature with constant shaking. B-glucanase activity wasvisualized as yellow-orange bands on a reddish-purple background.

Determination of B-1,3-Glucanase Specific Activity

The specific activity of sugar beet apoplastic B-1,3-glucanase wasdetermined by measuring the release of glucose units from laminarin.Sodium acetate buffer (100 IJI, pH 5.0, 100 mM) containing 0.5%laminarin and 0.5 ug-2.0 ug apoplastic protein (plants per treatmentreplicated 3 times) was incubated at 3rc for 30-60 min. Followingincubation, 900 ul of water and 1 ml of alkaline copper reagent [45] wasadded to each 2 reaction. The tubes were then placed into a boilingwater bath for 10 min. After cooling on ice, 1 ml arsenomolybdate colorreagent [33] was added to each reaction. Once the bubbling had subsided,10 ml of water were added to each tube before reading the A660. Astandard curve was established by adding 5 ug-25 ug glucose to 1 mltotal reactions that did not contain laminarin.

Results

Native polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) was run under acidicconditions to examine basic B-1,3-glucanases produced in response toASM, BmJ or water treatment. Two active isoforms were produced in sugarbeet following BmJ treatment. One of the two isoforms was also presentand active in sugar beet following ASM-treatment, however both werelacking in water-treated plants. To determine the total activity ofB-1,3-glucanase in sugarbeet, colorimetric assays were performed.BmJ-treated plants had a specific activity that was approximately twicethat of the activity in water-treated plants, but approximatelyone-third the ASM-induced activity; both were statistically significantincreases when compared to the water-treated and dead BmJ-controls(Table 4). Dead BmJ-treated plants had specific activities statisticallyequivalent to the water-treated controls (Table 4).

Example 7 Determining Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance inPlants by Presence of Peroxidase

Determination of Peroxidase Activity

Apoplastic peroxidase activity from three plants per ASM, BmJ and watertreatment (3 replicates of each) was measured using guaiacol reagentaccording to Hammerschmidt et al [15]. The concentration of protein asadjusted to give a change in absorbance units greater than 0.100, butless than 0.200, per minute. Specific activity was expressed as theincrease inabsorbance (A470) over time (2 min) per mg of protein, asdetermined using Bradford reagent (BioRAD).

Determination of Peroxidase Activity Following Native-PAGE

Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was performed according to Reisfeldet al. [39]. Following electrophoresis, the gels were stained using aAEC staining kit (Sigma) for 16 hours while gently shaking in the dark.The gels were then rinsed with distilled water 3× for a total of 15 minto stop the reactions.

Results

Peroxidase is a PR-protein that can be measured using activity assays.BmJ treatment elicited significantly greater peroxidase activity in theapoplast of distal sugar beet leaves than water or dead BmJ treatment(Table 4). Peroxidase activity following BmJ treatment was alsostatistically equivalent to that elicited by ASM (positive control)treatment (Table 4). To determine if the increased activity noted in thechemical SAR-inducer and bacterial treatments—was due to plantproduction of new peroxidase isoforms, in-gel activity assays wereperformed. Both the ASM- and BmJ-treated plants had two additionalactive isoforms not detected in the negative (water) control. There wereseveral other minor isoforms that present in the water controls as well.

Example 8 Methods of Screening for Bacillus Control Agents—Detection ofChitinase and B-1,3-Glucanase Activity

Apoplastic Protein Extractions

The leaf penultimate to the oldest true leaf was treated with one of theBacillus strains. BmJ, ASM, or distilled water, in replicates of 3, withan aerosol sprayer, and immediately bagged. The plants were kept at28+/−2° C. for 6 days at which time the apoplastic proteins werecollected as described by Klement (1965), with the followingmodification: a buffer containing 150 mM NaCl and 25 mM MES, pH 6.2, wassubstituted for distilled water. The proteins were quantified byBradford reagent (Bio-Red) using bovine serum albumin as standards andfrozen at −80° C. until analyzed.

Glycol Chitin Plate Assay for Chitinase Activity

Apoplastic protein (0.009, 0.006, and 0.005 ug for each sample inreplicates of 3) was added to wells in a 1% agarose gel containing 0.01%glycol chitin in a 14 cm diameter glass petri plate, along withchitinase standards (Streptomyces griseus, Sigma). The plates wereincubated at 37° C. for 24 hours. Following incubation. 50 ml of 500 mMTris-HCl (pH 8.9) containing 0.01°/fluorescent brightener [28] was addedto the plate for 10 min. The plate was then rinsed three times withdistilled water, flooded with water, and allowed to destain in the darkfor 2-24 hours. The non-fluorescent lytic zones on a fluorescentbackground were measured while the plate was on a 302 nm UV lightsource. Specific activity (mg of N-acetyl-D-glucosamine released/hr/mgof apoplastic protein) was determined by comparison of the lyric zonediameter of the standards and the apoplastic samples (Velasquez. 2002).

Results-Chitinase as a Predictor of Disease Control

An increase in chitinase specific activity following treatment with aBacillus control agent in comparison to the water-treated negativecontrol constituted the classification of the agent as a SAR-inducer.The glycol chitin plate assays, for the determination of chitinaseactivity, had a reasonable level of precision with discrepancies havingoccurred only 9% of the time between independent experiments. Thestandard deviation within a subset in one independent replicate wasapproximately 10% and approximately 17% between subsets in oneindependent experiment.

Cumulative results of five independent experiments correctly identifiedall four SAR-inducers present in the pool of isolates tested and yieldedfour false positives and no false negative identifications (Table 5).

Aniline Blue Plate Assay for B-Glucanase Activity

Apoplastic protein (0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 ug for each sample inreplicates of 3) was added to 3-mm diameter wells in a 0.5% agarose gelcontaining 0.005% aniline blue (MCB) and 0.5m.1/ml laminarin (fromLaminaria digitata, Sigma) in a 14 cm diameter glass petri plate, alongwith laminarinase (Penicillium spp., Sigma) standards (2×10.5−2×10⁻³units of lamina˜inase). The plates were incubated at 30° C. for 18-24hours. Following Incubation, the pink lytic zones on a blue backgroundwere measured while the plate was on a white light source. Specificactivity (ug of glucose released/min/mg of apoplastic protein) wasdetermined by comparison of the lytic zone diameter of the standards andthe apoplastic samples.

Results-B-1,3-Glucanase as a Predictor of Disease Control

An increase in B-1,3-glucanase specific activity following treatmentwith a Bacillus control agent in comparison to the water-treatednegative control constituted the classification of the agent as aSAR-inducer. The aniline blue plate assay was highly reproducible with astandard deviations of 11% within subsets of one replication and 21%between subsets in one replication. There was a high degree of precisionwhen using the aniline blue plate assay with few false positiveidentifications (0-40% between independent experiments) and no falsenegative identifications. Based on the increase in activity serving asan indicator of SAR induction, the cumulative results of two independentexperiments yielded one false positive identification (Table 5).

Results—Chitinase and B-1,3-Glucanase as a Predictor of Disease Control

There may be circumstances where the occurrence of chitinase andB-glucanase alone is not correlated with disease control (Punja, 2001),especially with fungal pathogens, since the enzymes functionsynergistically (Melchers and Stuiver, 2000). Therefore examination ofthe defense proteins together provides a more accurate prediction ofdisease control capability. Based on the assumption that increasedactivity for both defense proteins indicated SAR-inducing capacity,combined results from the glycol chitin and aniline blue plate assayscorrectly identified all SAR-inducing isolates, indicated by check marksin Table 5. Furthermore, relying on this method did not include anyfalse-positive identification.

TABLE 5 Cummulative results of the methods for host-response basedhigh-throughput screening for the identification of Bacillus controlagents. Aniline blue Glycol chitin Aniline blue and Treatment platesplates glycol chitin plates water 2.75cd 1.56g 203-3 3.20cd 2.55def203-4 3.35hcd 2.03fg 203-6 4.90ah 2.97bcd ✓ 203-7 5.75a 4.00a ✓ 203-114.00b 2.04fg BMH5E-33 2.80cd 2.1gefg BMH5E-40 2.35d 2.22efg 341-20-143.85bcd 2.68def 341-20-15 2.70cd 2.14efg 241-20-1 2.55cd 2.74cde341-16-5 3.15cd 3.44eb BmJ 6.10a 3.41 abc ✓ ASM 5.70a 3.09hed ✓

Example 9 Methods of Screening for Bacillus Control Agents-Detection ofBiphasic Hydrogen Peroxide Production

Sugar Beet Protoplast Generation

Sugar beet protoplasts were isolated from sugar beet leaves to provide amedium to measure hydrogen peroxide production. Sugar beet leaves weregently brushed on the adaxial and abaxial surfaces with a 50 ft bristlebrush to create small abrasions. The leaves were then cut into 1 cmstrips and vacuum infiltrated for 5 min with 0.7 M sucrose containing3.8% CaCL2, CPW salts (Frearson et al, 1973), 1.2% cellulase (Sigma),and 0.4% macerozyme (ICN Biomedicals). The infiltrated leaves wereincubated in the 0.7M sucrose-salt and enzyme solution for 24-48 hoursin the dark. Following incubation, the enzyme solution was gentlyremoved and the protoplasts were released into 0.7M sucrose containing3.8°% CaCI2 and CPW salts by gently shaking the leaf strips in thesolution. Phenol red oxidation for hydrogen peroxide production.

To determine if the Bacillus strains elicited biphasic hydrogen peroxideproduction in sugar beet, phenol red oxidation assays were performedaccording to Pick and Keisari (1980). Both protoplasts (250protoplasts/reaction) and whole leaf disks (12 disks/reaction) were usedto study the plant response. When using protoplasts, an external sourceof peroxidase (type 11 horseradish peroxidase, Sigma) was added to eachreaction while in the latter case. The peroxidase contained within theadded leaf disks was sufficient for the oxidation reaction. Phenol redreactions were run with each Bacillus strain alone, protoplasts alone,leaf disks alone, Bacillus-treated leaf disks, and combinations ofBacillus strains and protoplasts. Bacillus treated leaves were washedbefore adding to each reaction to remove a majority of the bacteria fromthe leaf surface. To calculate the amount of hydrogen peroxide producedin each instance, the A470 was compared to a standard curve establishedusing 0-40 mM hydrogen peroxide and 6-2 ug/ml type II horseradishperoxidase. The amount of hydrogen peroxide produced from protoplasts inresponse to treatment with a Bacillus control agent was calculated asfollows: amount of hydrogen peroxide produced in Bacillus protoplastreactions—(amount of hydrogen peroxide produced in protoplast onlyreactions+amount of hydrogen peroxide produced in Bacillus-onlyreaction). The amount of hydrogen peroxide produced by the leaf disks inresponse to Bacillus treatment was calculated as follows: amount ofhydrogen peroxide produced by Bacillus-treated leaf disks-amount ofhydrogen peroxide produced by leaf disks only reaction.

Results-Biphasic Hydrogen Peroxide Production Curves as Predictors ofDisease Control

Biphasic hydrogen peroxide production, as measured using phenol redoxidation, was used as an indicator of SAR-induction capability. Incases where a single burst of hydrogen peroxide occurred without thesecondary, more prolonged AOS burst, the strain was classified as anon-SAR inducer. AOS production profiles were similar regardless of theplant material used to analyze the production pattern of hydrogenperoxide. The reproducibility was quite high with only 7% disagreementbetween independent experiments using protoplasts and leaf disks. Allbiphasic curves elicited by the Bacillus strains were statisticallysimilar in timing and intensity. In all cases the primary peak(approximately 3 mM) occurred at 15 min post-treatment and the secondarypeak (approximately 2-4 mM) occurred at approximately 2 hourpost-treatment. False positive identification using this method occurred8-15% of the time between independent experiments. ASM did not inducebiphasic hydrogen peroxide production.

Example 10 Use of Bacillus Control a Ent in Disease Control in BananaSlants

Spray-dried cells of Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ) were prepared asdescribed in Example 2. The spray-dried BmJ was applied aerially at aconcentration of 1×10⁶ cfu/ml at a rate of 7 gallons/acre to bananaplants. The ability of the BmJ treatment to control the fungal diseaseBlack Sigatoka (caused by Mycosphaerella fijiensis) was determined. Thebanana plants were infected by the pathogen Mycosphaerella fijiensispresent in the field under naturally occurring conditions. Efficacy ofBmJ treatments were evaluated in comparison with the fungicides TPTH at5 oz per acre and Propaconizole at 10 oz per acre. These rates are therecommended application rates for these fungicides. Results wereassessed-by visual scoring of leaf tissue damage.

Results

Treatment of the banana plants with BmJ was just as effective atcontrolling Black Sigatoka as treatment of banana plants with thefungicide TpTH.

Example 11 Use of Bacillus Control Agent in Disease Control in PecanPlants

Spray-dried cells of Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ) were prepared asdescribed in Example 2. The spray-dried BmJ was applied by an orchardspray mechanism at a concentration of 1×1 06 cfu/ml at a rate of 200gallons/acre to pecan plants. The ability of the BmJ treatment tocontrol the fungal disease Pecan scab (caused by Cladosporiumcaryigenum) was determined. The pecan trees were infected undernaturally occurring conditions by the pathogen Cladosporium caryigenumpresent in the orchard. BmJ treatments were compared with the fungicideTPTH applied at the recommended rate of 5 oz per acre. Disease damagewas rated by visual observation using a numerical scale.

Results

Treatment of the pecan plants with BmJ was just as effective atcontrolling Pecan scab as treatment of pecan plants with the fungicideTpTH.

Example 12 Use of Bacillus Control a Agent in Disease Control inCucumber Slants

The anthracnose and angular leaf spot-cucumber-pathosystems were used tocompare disease control using induced systemic resistance by Bacillusmycoides, isolate BmJ and Bacillus mojavensis, isolate MSU 203-7.

Bacilli were applied as a first true leaf treatment at 10⁹ colonyforming units (cfu)/ml 5 days before challenge inoculation with G.cingulata=10⁵ conidia/ml and P. syringae=10⁴ cfu/ml. Five days (sevendays for the angular leaf spot-pathosystem) after challenge inoculation,disease development was compared to water treated and pathogen-inducedcontrols. BmJ treatments significantly lengthened the latent period byapproximately 1 day and decreased both total spore production byapproximately 64% and the percentage of viable spores by approximately54% in the anthracnose experiment. The percent of infected leaf area wassignificantly reduced by approximately 37% and 48% by B. mycoides and B.pumilus. Both Bacillus treatments also reduced the systemic movement byapproximately 27% and 36% in the angular leaf spot experiment.

Example 13 Determining impact of SA and NPR1 Signaling on Induction ofSystemic Acquired Resistance in Sugar Beets

Plants have a variety of means of defending themselves against pathogenattack. Some constitutive lines of defense include physical barriersthat prevent pathogen ingress and can contain antimicrobial proteins andsecondary metabolites (reviewed by Vorwork et al, 2004) and productionof toxins that are deleterious to particular pathogens (reviewed byWittstock and Gershenzon, 2002). Additionally, in some instances, plantscan mount an inducible defense response upon pathogen challenge.Inducible broad-spectrum resistance provides long-term defense against awide array of potential pathogens and has been described in severalplant systems in response to a variety of different stimuli (Ryals etal, 1996; van Wees et al, 1997; Yoshioka et al, 2001, Yasuda et al,2003).

Signaling components involved in elicitation of defense are largelyunknown. However, several key players have been identified, such assalicylic acid (“SA”) (Ollestam and Larsson, 2003; Shah, 2003; Alvarez,2000; Shapiro and Gutsche, 2003), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (Heiland Bostock, 2002, Anderson et al, 2004), all of which are consideredsecondary signal molecules. Some downstream signaling components, suchas NON-EXPRESSOR OF PATHOGENESIS-RELATED GENES1 (NPR1) have been shownto be deployed during SA-dependent defense (reviewed by Dong, 2004).NPR1 has also been shown to orchestrate cross-talk between SA and JApathways (Spool et al, 2003). These antagonistic pathways elicitdistinct subsets of defense-related proteins. SA-dependent pathways areassociated with pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins such as chitinase,peroxidase, glucanase and PR-1 (reviewed by Durrant and Dong, 2004). JAand ethylene, on the other hand, are associated with production ofthionins, defensins and proteinase inhibitors (Reymond et al, 2000; Xuet al, 2001). SA is tied to the oxidative burst, one of the earliestevents in the establishment of induced resistance. Interaction occursbetween SA and active oxygen species (AOS) produced during the oxidativeburst. SA can bind to and inhibit antioxidant enzymes leading to anincrease in AOS concentration (Chen et al, 1993; Durner and Klessig,1995). Additionally, hydrogen peroxide, one of the AOS, has been shownto be involved in the potentiation of phenylalanine ammonia lyase andbenzoic acid 2-hydroxylase (Leon et al, 1995); two enzymes in one of theSA biosynthetic pathways (Coquoz et al, 1998). It has also beenhypothesized that AOS may be involved in the liberation of free SA fromelusive SA conjugates constitutively stored in plant cells (Leon et al,1995).

SA and AOS are also linked to activation of NPR1, a protein thatfunctions downstream of SA signaling. NPR1 is a constitutively expressedprotein that contains domains which function in protein-proteininteractions (Cao et al, 1997; Aravind and Koonin, 1999). The proteinexists in an inactive multimeric state. Increased concentrations of AOSduring the oxidative burst triggers overproduction of antioxidantenzymes in the plant. The AOS scavenging is hypothesized to create thereducing environment necessary to release an active monomer of NPR1 (Mouet al, 2003). The monomeric NPR1 moves to the nucleus, associates withTGA transcription factors and activates PR-genes (Fan and Dong, 2002).

Previously we have described the biochemical outcome of treatment ofsugar beet with two biological control agents (BCA), Bacillus mycoidesisolate Bac J (BmJ) (Bargabus et al, 2002) and Bacillus mojavensis(previously identified as B. pumulis) isolate 203-7 (203-7) (Bargabus etal, 2004). Both biological control agents induce resistance that affordsprotection against Cercospora beticola, the causal agent of Cercosporaleaf spot, a devastating foliar pathogen of sugar beet (Weiland andKoch, 2004). Since the resistance is associated with production ofSA-associated PR-proteins (peroxidase, 13-glucanase and chitinase), wehave hypothesized the signaling pathway is SA dependent. Due to the factboth BCAs elicit an oxidative burst (Bargabus et al, 2003 and 2004), wehave speculated that NPR1 may also be deployed in the establishment ofresistance. In the current investigation we test these hypotheses todetermine the role of SA and NPR1 in Bacilli-induced resistance in sugarbeet.

Plant Culture

Beta vulgaris FC 607 germplasm (provided by Dr. Lee Panella, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, FortCollins, Colo.) was seeded into 20-cm diameter pots containingpasteurized Scotts Metro-Mix supplemented with Scotts Osmocote 14-14-14(American Clay, Denver, Colo.). Seed was dusted with a 4:1(v/v)charcoallmetalaxyl (Apron, Gustafson, Plano, Tex.) mixture prior toplanting to control damping off by Pythium. Plants were maintained at22° C.±5° C. and were watered twice a week to maintain vigorous growth.At about four weeks, Imidacloprid (Marathon, 1% granular, ½ tsp/pot) andtriazole (Strike, foliar spray, 1.9 g/l) (Olympic Horticultural ProductsCo., Mainland, Pa.) were used as preventatives for thriplaphid feedingand powdery mildew respectively. Plants used in all experiments werebetween 5 and 7 weeks of age. The photoperiod of light was determined bynatural sunlight of 12 to 15 hours.

Bacterial Cultures

Bacillus mycoides isolate Bac J (BmJ), originally isolated from sugarbeet leaves in Sidney, Mont. in 1994, was prepared as previouslydescribed (Bargabus et al, 2002). Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7,originally isolated from embryos of germinating sugar beet seed in 1997,was prepared as previously described (Bargabus et al, 2004). Bacilluspumulis isolate BMH5E-33, originally isolated from the sugar beetrhizosphere in Sidney, Mont. in 1′997, was prepared as previouslydescribed (Bargabus et al, 2004). Treatment of Sugar Beet with Elicitorsof Systemic Resistance [0114] Acibenzolar-5-methyl (ASM, 50 ppm a.i.;Actigard 50WG, Syngenta, Greensboro, N.C.), a known chemical of inducerof resistance, was applied as an experimental control for SA and NPR1analysis. ASM and live and autoclave killed (dead), washed BmJ, 203-7and BMI-15E-33 cells were spray applied to near run off to all fullyexpanded leaves. Water was spray applied as an experimental negativecontrol for all treatments. In NPR1 experiments, SA (2 mM in 0.1Mpotassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, containing 0.01% triton x-100) wasadded as an additional positive control. Extraction of Free andConjugated Salicylic Acid from Sugar Beet Leaf Tissue.

Two main precursors, isochorismate (Wildermuth et al, 2001) andphenylalanine (Ribnicky et al, 1998), are implicated in the formation ofSA during plant defense, both of which stem from the shikimic acidpathway (Metraux, 2002). Salicylic acid is produced locally in treatedleaves and systemically in distal, untreated leaves during theestablishment of systemic acquired resistance. Production is transientand free SA is rapidly modified to 2-O-b-D-glucosylsalicylic acid(Enyedi and Raskin, 1993), a hypothetical SA storage compound. Thereforethe best measure of SA-dependency is gathered by measuring free andconjugated SA, or total SA, concentrations over time.

One half of each treated leaf was excised and weighed (one leaf half perplant; two plants per time point). Sampling was conducted over a 48 hourtimeline (O, 1, 3, 6, 8, 24, 30 and 48 hours). The free and conjugated(2-o-β-D-glucosylsalicylic acid) SA was extracted as described byVerberne et al (2002) with the following modifications. Instead of beingground in liquid nitrogen, fresh leaf samples were ground directly inmethanol using a glass tissue macerator. Additionally, the samples weredried by blow down under air, instead of in a SpeedVac (company,location) concentrator. These experiments were repeated on threeindependent occasions.

High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Determination of Salicylic AcidConcentration

Dry samples were dissolved in absolute methanol (0.5 ml) and filteredthrough a 0.45 IJm nylon filter (Supelco, Bellefonte, PAl. Acetic acid(0.5 ml of 1.2% v/v) was added and the sample was filtered a second timeusing a 0.45 IJm nylon filter. Sample (50 ul) was injected onto aSupercosil LC-18 HPLC column (250×4.6 mm, Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.)equipped with a C-18 guard column (7.5×4.6 mm, Alltech, Deerfield,Ill.). Elution was isocratic using 1:1 methanol to 1.2% v/v aqueousacetic acid at 0.8 ml/min. Under these conditions, SA had a retentiontime of 9.6 min at room temperature. Detection was performed using aModel L-4500A diode array detector (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). Integrationof the salicylic acid peak was performed at 240 nm. A standard curve wasdeveloped based on integration values of salicylic acid in 1:1 methanolto 1.2% aqueous acetic acid (0.25-10.0 ug/ml).

Determination of Percent Recovery for Salicylic Acid

To determine the amount of salicylic acid lost during extraction,several untreated leaf samples (2/SA concentration) were spiked with SA(0, 10, 100 and 200 mg) dissolved in 100% methanol. The samples wereground and SA was extracted as described above. The percent ofrecoverable SA was determined by comparing the integration valuesobtained by HPLC to a standard curve developed for SA. The experimentwas repeated on two independent occasions.

Protein Extraction and Electrophoresis

To examine activation of NPR1, total protein was extracted from sugarbeet leaf tissue at 2 days post treatment with ASM, live and dead BmJ,203-7, BMI-15E-33, SA and water using a plant fractionated proteinextraction kit (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.) according to the manufacturer'srecommendations. Additionally, total protein was extracted from LiveBmJ-treated tissue over an expanded 48 hour timeline (0, 0.5, 3, 6, 8,24, and 48 hours). Protein concentration was determined by Bradfordassay (BioRad) in comparison with bovine serum albumin standards (0-20mM). Proteins (100 mg/sample) were heated to 60° C. for 10 min in sampleloading buffer (125 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.8, 5% SDS, 25% glycerol and 0.4%bromphenol blue). When the samples were to be reduced, 50 mMDithiothreitol (DTT) was added to the sample loading buffer. Proteinswere resolved (12% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) gel)for 45 min (200 V) at pH 8.3 using molecular standards (BioRAD) formolecular weight determination. Both sets of experiments were replicatedthree independent times.

Western Analysis

Following electrophoresis, proteins were transferred to polyvinylidenefluoride membranes (BioRad) for 1 hour (100 V) in 25 mM Tris, 192 mMglycine and 20% (v/v) methanol (pH 8.3) using a BioRad mini-blotapparatus according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Membraneswere blocked with 3% BSA for 1 hour, incubated in primaryanti-Arabidopsis NPR1 antibody (Provided by Dr. Xinnian Dong, DukeUniversity, Durham, N.C.; Mou et al, 2003, diluted 1:15,000) overnightat 4° C., followed by incubation in peroxidase-conjugatedgoat-anti-rabbit secondary antibody (BioRad, diluted 1:10,000) for 1hour at room temperature. Colorimetric detection was performed using the3-amino-9-ethylcarbazole (AEC) staining kit (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.).

Results—Salicylic Acid

BmJ and 203-7 both elicit systemic resistance independent of SAaccumulation. Over a 48 hour sampling scheme no statistical increaseswere noted between total SA levels at time zero and other time points inthe Bacilli-treated leaves. The trend for SA levels was the same forwater- and BMH5E-33-treated leaves. As shown in FIG. 1, at several latertime points (6, 8, 30 and 48 hours post treatment), 203-7-treated leaveshad a statistically significant decrease in SA levels.

Determination of Percent Recovery for Salicylic Acid. Salicylic acidextraction methods provide notoriously poor recovery rates. Therefore,it was important to determine the amount of SA lost during the currentextraction procedure. In the current experiment, recovery of spiked SAranged from 57 to 79 percent. As seen with the unspiked samples, thetotal SA level is not at zero under basal conditions as shown in FIG. 2.

Results—NPR1

Only the inducers of resistance, live BmJ, 203-7, SA and ASM, activatedNPR1 by 48 hours. Our negative controls, water and BMH5E-33, did notelicit reduction of the NPR1 oligomeric complex. However, it is shown inFIG. 3 that the NPR1 monomer could be “forcibly” released throughaddition of OTT, a reducing agent, in the loading buffer. When examiningNPR1 activation following BmJ treatment over an expanded timeline, themonomeric form was first detectable at 3 hours post treatment andremained active through 48 hours of sampling.

Prior accounts have shown NPR1 is activated early in plant defense andremains active at least through 48 hours post elicitation, thereforeNPR1 monomerization was examined at 2 days post treatment with live anddead BmJ, ASM, 203-7, BMH5E-33, SA and water.

Discussion

Summary.

Both BCAs elicit systemic resistance independent of SA accumulation,since there was no statistical increase in SA level in sugar beet leaftissue over a 48 hour timeline following treatment with WO or 203-7.Additionally, the SA trend over time was similar to that observedfollowing water and Bacillus pumulis isolate BMH5E-33 (BMH5E-33)treatment, an experimental and biological negative control respectively.

This would indicate the involvement of a novel secondary signalingcomponent or activation of the signal transduction cascade downstream ofSA accumulation. The latter is similar to acibenzolar-5-methylactivation of sugar beet systemic resistance which is SA-independent butNPR1-dependent. Without being limited by theory, we initially thoughtthat both BmJ and 203-7 BCAs may activate NPR1, a protein associatedwith transcriptional activation of pathogensis-related genes. NPR1 wasactivated by 3 hours post treatment with BmJ in expanded samplingtimelines. This timing of activation corresponds to the conclusion ofthe secondary hydrogen peroxide burst elicited by BmJ. The informationobtained in this current investigation has allowed for furtherdevelopment of a working model for understanding signaling in BmJ- and203-7-induced resistance in sugar beet.

No SA Accumulation.

Surprisingly, SA accumulation in sugar beet following BCA treatment wasabsent. As shown in FIG. 2, there was no statistical difference in SAlevel over time following BmJ treatment and the overall trend for SA wassimilar to that following water or BMH5E-33 treatment, both of which arenegative controls.

Salicylic acid levels in SA-dependent resistance have been reported torise as much as 15-fold over the basal level following resistanceelicitation. Without being limited by theory, it is unlikely the currentextraction or detection method are responsible for a failure to uncovera response of this magnitude, especially when we have observed 57-79%recovery of free SA spiked into samples prior to extraction, as shown inFIG. 1. Additionally, when testing for SA accumulation in sugar beetusing a chemical positive control that activates SAR upstream of SA(probenazole, Yoshioka et al, 2001), there was a trend towards increasedtotal SA levels over time (data not shown).

Interestingly, 203-7 treatment, which elicits similar biochemicalresponses from beet as BmJ, alternately led to a statisticallysignificant decrease in SA levels over time, as shown in FIG. 2. Howeverwe do not consider this to be of biological significance since thechange is so nominal.

Acibenzolar-5-methyl (“ASM”), a functional analog of SA (Tally et al,1999; Lawton et al, 1996), activates the signal transduction cascadedownstream of SA production which has been demonstrated using nahGplants (Chandra-Shekara et al, 2004). Therefore, the lack of SAaccumulation following ASM application was expected.

NPR1 likely has role in SeA-induced resistance. Both BCAs in this studyelicit an oxidative burst and PR-protein production in sugar beet, theactivator and result of NPR1 monomerization respectively. Therefore arole for NPR1 in BCA-induced resistance seems likely. Other reports haveshown NPR1 is activated early in plant defense and remains activethrough 48 hours post treatment (Mou et al, 2003) All of our inducingtreatments, SA, ASM, live BmJ and 203-7, activated NPR1 by 2 days postapplication. On the other hand, water, dead BmJ and BMH5E-33,non-inducers, did not activate NPR1 at the time points examined, as seenin FIG. 3. None of the plants had any monomeric NPR1 present at timezero, which immediately proceeded application of our various treatments(data not shown). The antibody used in this study detected both theoligo- and monomeric forms of the protein. Live BmJ, ASM, SA and 203-7treatment lead to partial reduction of the protein complex. Addition ofon, a reducing agent, fully reduced the oligomer. Furthermore, themultimer of NPR1 was detected in the water-, dead BmJ- andBMH5E-33-treated samples, as would be expected of a constitutivelyexpressed protein. Addition of on, in these cases as well, lead to fullreduction of NPR1 into a monomeric state. Interestingly, in Arabidopsisthis particular antibody only detects monomeric NPR1 (Mou et al, 2003).

Without being limited by theory, we initially thought that BacilliBCA-induced resistance appears to be SA-independent but NPR1-dependentleads to two hypotheses: 1) Bacilli-induced resistance activates theSA-dependent signaling cascade downstream of SA, or 2) SAR is activatedthrough reliance on a novel signaling compound. The former is similar towhat is observed with several chemical inducers, such as ASM,2,6-dichloroisonicotinic acid (Nakashita et al, 2002) andN-cyanomethyl-2-chloroisonicotinamide (yasuda et al, 2003). Salicylicacid does not directly activate NPR1; activation is achieved through anintermediate. Since NPR1 is activated by 3 hours following BmJtreatment, which corresponds to the peak of the secondary oxidativeburst (Bargabus et al, 2003), this intermediate factor may be activatedthrough peripheral OXB-associated responses, bypassing the need for SAaccumulation.

Pathogenesis-related proteins induced by BmJ and 203-7 are associatedwith a typical SA-reliant pathway which is antagonistic towardsJA-dependent defense (Felton and Korth, 2000; Gupta et al, 2000).Therefore, without being limited by theory, we initially thought that anovel signal, other than JA-ethylene, seems more likely deployed bythese BCAs based on the Example 13. Other accounts of signalingcomponents associated with Bacilli-induced resistance do not reach acongruent conclusion. Ryu et al (2004a) showed an isolate of Bacilluspumulis induced SA-independent resistance in Arabidopsis effectiveagainst Cucumber mosaic virus. Another BCA in the study, Serattiamarcescens, activated a JA-dependent NPR1-independent pathway. However,B. pumulis dependence on JA and NPR1 was not discussed. In a separatestudy, Ryu et al (2004b) showed that an isolate of Bacillus subtilisinduced systemic resistance through ethylene-dependent pathwayscompletely independent of both SA and JA. Yet another isolate of B.subtilis, when tested on cucumber and tomato, induced resistanceassociated with differential accumulation of plant transcripts distinctfrom classical SA or JA associated SAR markers (Ongena et al, 2004).Again without being limited by theory, perhaps this is evidence of anovel BCA signaling cascade and defense response. Adding to thecomplexity, B. amyloliquefaciens induced NPR1-dependent resistanceassociated with both SA- and JA-dependent defenses (Anh et al, 2002).Interestingly, in pathogen-elicited defense, NPR1, when triggeredthrough SA-dependent channels, represses JA-associated proteinproduction (Spoel et al, 2003). This demonstrates that BCA activation ofNPR1 has a different outcome altogether than pathogen activation, whichmay suggest involvement of novel signaling component. Whether BmJ and/or203-7 elicit production of jasmonate-associated proteins has not beeninvestigated based on the presumed universal antagonism between SA andJA. The fact that some BCAs are able to concordantly induce thesenormally inhibitory pathways provides additional credence to the ideathat a unique signal is being produced that does not impart negativeregulation on either subset of JA or SA associated genes. Theinformation gathered in this current investigation has allowed forfurther expansion of our BCA-sugar beet interaction model, as shown inFIG. 4.

Example 14 Defense Pathways Activated by Bacillus mojavensis Isolate203-7 and B. Mycoides Isolate BmJ as Elucidated by Arabidopsis Mutants

Bacterial Cultures:

B. mycoides isolate BmJ (BmJ) was originally isolated from sugar beetleaves. B. mojavensis isolate 203-7 (203-7) originally isolated fromsugar beet seed embryos was included in the greenhouse experiments sinceit showed good induction of SAR in previous experiments (Bargabus etal., 2004). Bacteria were cultured in 3% TSB for 24 hr at 22° C. on anorbital shaker at 250 rpm. Fresh cells were harvested by centrifugationfor 20 min at 5,000 rpm at 4° C. The pellet was re-suspended insterile-distilled water and pelleted twice by centrifugation for 20 minat 5,000 rpm at 4° C. to assure that all fermentation beer was separatedfrom the cells. The inoculum density was adjusted to 108 colony formingunits (CFU)/ml with distilled water and was applied using an aerosolsprayer with applications made to run-off.

Fungal Culture:

Botrytis cinerea isolate Bot-I was originally isolated from infectedplant material and conidia were stored at −80° C. Conidia were streakedonto 50% potato dextrose agar using a sterile loop and incubated at 24°C. for 2 weeks. Plates were flooded with a solution consisting of 6.2 mMKH2P04 and 5.5 mM glucose in sterile-distilled water and conidia wereloosen with a sterile glass rod. Conidia suspension was decanted andfiltered through two layers of cheesecloth to remove mycelium and agarpieces. The inoculum density was adjusted to 105 conidia/ml.

Arabidopsis Thaliana Wild Type and Mutants.

Arabidopsis thaliana ecotype Columbia (Col-0) was received from Dr.Robert Sharrock, Montana State University. Following Arabidopsisthaliana mutants were obtained from the TAIR stock center and had aCol-O background: ein2-1 (TAIR CS3071, ethylene insensitive), jar/4(TAIR CS8072, jasmonate resistance), ndr1-1/npr1-2 (TAIR CS6355,nonexpresser of PR genes and salicylic acid insensitive), and npr1-5(TAIR CS3724, nonexpresser of PR genes and salicylic acid insensitive).The NahG mutant was obtained from Dr. Bob Dietrich, Syngenta, N.C.

Chemical Inducers.

Acibenzolar-s-methyl (ASM) (Actigard 50WG Fungicide, Syngenta,Greensboro, N.C.) as used as the chemical inducer for Col-O and NahGplants at a rate of 50 ug/ml of sterile distilled water. Probenazole(PBZ) (Chem Service, West Chester, Pa.) was used for npr1-5 mutants at arate of 2 mM PBZ suspended in 0.1 M potassium phosphate buffer with0.01% trition X-I 00. jar1-1 plants were treated with methyl jasmonate(MeJa) (TCI America, Portland, Oreg.) at a rate of 7.5 mM in 0.8%ethanol. 1 mM of 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid (Ethephon, Acros Organics,NJ) dissolved in sterile-distilled water was the chemical inducer forein2-1. All chemical inducers were applied using an aerosol sprayer withapplications made to run-off

Plant Culture, Treatments, Inoculation and Data Analysis.

Arabidopsis seeds were sown in flats containing Sunshine #1 mix (Sun GroHorticulture Inc., Bellevue, Wash.) and vernalized for 4 days at 5±2° C.under 80% relative humidity (rh).

They were then transferred to a growth chamber, sub-irrigated and keptat 22±2° C. day and 20 2° C. night temperature with a 10 hr photoperiod.After 3 weeks, individual plants were transplanted into plastic potsfilled with Sunshine #1 mix supplemented with Osmocote Classic 14-14-14(The Scotts Company, Marysville, Ohio) at a rate of 1.5 kg/m3 ofSunshine #1 mix. After 3 weeks, plants were induced either withdistilled water, buffer, 203-7, BmJ, or the mutant specific chemicalinducer by spraying the whole plant. After 6 days, plants were challengeinoculated with Bot-1 conidia solution by placing one 5 J11 droplet on 3individual leaves per plant. Following inoculation, plants were placedat conditions as described above and under 90% rh for 7 days to allowdisease development. Disease severity was rated at a 0 to 5 scale with0=no visible lesion to 5=lesion expanding into non-inoculated tissue.The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 20replications per treatment for the Botrytis cinerea-bioassay and 8replications per treatment for the PR-protein assays. Experiments wererepeated three times. Data were analyzed statistically by conducting ananalysis of variance using the general linear model procedure of the SASprogram (SAS system, Version 9.00, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.). Thetreatment means were separated using Fisher's protected leastsignificant difference test at P=0.05.

Apoplastic Fluid Extraction and Protein Quantification:

Apoplastic fluids were done as described by Klement, 1965. Proteinamount of apoplastic fluids was quantified using Bio-Rad protein assaykit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, Calif.) per manufacturer's instructions usingbovine serum albumin (EMD Chemicals Inc., Darmstadt, Germany) asstandards.

Chitinase, p-Glucanase and Superoxide Dismutase Assays:

Chitinase activity in apoplastic fluids was assayed as described by Hunget al. (2002). The microplate-based carboxymethylcellulose assaydescribed by Xiao et al. (2005) was adapted to determine β-glucanaseactivity in apoplastic fluids. Quantification of superoxide dismutase(SOD) activity in the apoplastic fluid samples was performed accordingto the method described by Ewing and Janero (1995).

Results and Discussion:

Effects of the two BCAs and chemical inducers on disease reduction areshown in Table I. For all tested Arabidopsis lines (Col-O and mutants),the bacilli treatments and the chemical inducers were alwayssignificantly different (P=0.05) to the control plants treated withdistilled water except for BmJ in ein2-1 mutants. Plants treated withthe buffer controls alone were also significantly different to thecontrol plants but had overall the lowest disease reduction whencompared to the other treatments. Col-O plants treated with BmJ were notsignificantly different (P=0.05) from plants treated with Actigard or203-7. Plants treated with 203-7 showed a significant (P=0.05) diseasereduction in npr1-1, NahG, and ein2-1 mutants when compared to thespecific chemical inducers, but were not significantly different to PBZin the ndr1-1/npr1-2 mutant or to BmJ treated NahG mutants. Jarl-1mutants treated with either 203-7 or BmJ showed the lowest (P=0.05)disease reduction when compared to methyl jasmonate and were neversignificantly different (P=0.05) to each other or to plants treated withbuffer. Applications with BmJ resulted in the lowest (P=0.05) diseasereduction in ein2-1 mutants and in a decreased disease reduction similar(P=0.05) to buffer in npr1-5 mutants. These results confirm the workdone in sugar beet (Bargabus-Larson and Jacobsen, 2007) that inductionby BmJ is salicylic acid independent and both NPRldependent. Further itdemonstrates that BmJ induction involves jasmonic acid/ethylenesignaling. It also demonstrates that induction by 203-7 is jasmonic acidsignaling dependent and NPR1 independent.

TABLE 6 Percent disease reduction of Botrytis cinerea leaf spot onArabidopsis thaliana Col-O and Col-O mutants by means of induced SARresulting from foliar applications of Bacillus mojavensis isolate 203-7,B. mycoides isolate BmJ or chemical inducer. % disease reduction incomparison to distilled water Mutant Treatment Col-0 npr-5 jar1-1 NahGein2-1 203-7 38.4 B^(a) 52.4 d  13.0 bc 49.5 c 36.8 c BmJ 41.3 bc  9.9 b15.0 c 49.5 c  4.2 a chemical 45.9 C  41.9 c 49.9 d 32.6 b 28.1 binducer (Actigard) (PBZ) (methyl (Actigard) (ethephon) jasmonate) bufferna  7.9 b  10.2 bc na na distilled water 0 a   0 a  0 a  0 a  0 a ^(a)means in the same column followed by the same letter are notsignificant different according to Fisher's protected LSD (P = 0.05).

Wild type plants induced with BmJ and 203-7 had increased levels ofchitinase (P=0.05) when compared to water controls while on ein2-1mutants BmJ treatment did not increase chitinase levels. Chitinaselevels in 203-7 induced wild type plants were equivalent to thoseinduced with ASM but were not increased injar1-1 mutants (P=0.05). BmJdid not increase p-glucanase activity in either wild type or mutantplants while 203-7 increased p-glucanase in wild type, npr1-5, NahG andein2-1 mutants but notjar1-1 mutants (P=0.05). Both BmJ and 203-7increased SOD activity in wild type plants (P=0.05). BmJ treatment didnot increase SOD activity in npr1-5 or ein2-1 mutants. 203-7 inductionresulted in increased levels of SOD in npr1-5, NahG and ein2-1 mutants(P=0.05). These results demonstrate that PR and SOD activity are inducedwhere jasmonic acid signaling is required by 203-7 and that ethylenesignaling is involved in PR and SOD activity increases in plants inducedby BmJ. These results also demonstrate that our current classificationsof SAR and ISR do not work for BmJ or 203-7 BCAs and that there isconsiderable crosstalk occurring between plant defense signaling systemsin plants.

Example 15 Evaluation of Control on Fusarium Crown Rot by Induction ofSystemic Acquired Resistance by Bacillus mycoides Isolate J andAcbenzolar-S-Methyl Ester in Five Spring Wheat Cultivars

Preparation of Plant Material

The spring wheat cultivars Utopia (Triticum durum), Hank, Volt, MT0550,and Knudsen were used. Previously to seeding, the seeds were disinfectedfor 1 min with 10% sodium hypochloride and rinsed twice with steriledistilled water. Seeds were air dried for 3 hours in a fume hood. Pots(10 cm) with a capacity of 400 g of pasteurized MSU soil mix were usedand four seeds were placed equidistant and at 2.0 cm of deep.

Inoculation Procedure.

Pots were inoculated 15 days post planting (dpp) with macroconidia ofFusarium culmorum isolate 2279 using a perforated microcentrifuge tubeinserted in the center of the pot soil and equidistant of the emergedplants (FIG. 2). The soil inoculation was done by applying a suspensionof spores of 1.0×106 macroconidia suspended in 20 mL of distilled waterwith a pipette. Macroconidia were obtained by growing fungus in Mungbean media for 10 days. The media was filtered through cheese cloth andthe number of macroconidia was determined by counting using ahemacytometer.

Application of Inducers

Cultivars were sprayed with both inducers and a water control. Defenseswere chemically activated by spraying plants with four leaves 3 daysbefore inoculation. A suspension of ddH20 with 0.01% Tween 20 containingBmJ at 1.5×108 CFU per ml, 1.0 mM ASM (commercial formulation Actigard,Syngenta) solution, or only water were sprayed on the cultivars. Allplants were sprayed until runoff (−1.7 mL per plant) and maintainedseparated inside of the glasshouse by 2 h until foliage were dry.Sprayings were repeated at 19, 26 and 33 days post planting. Plants weregrown until Feekes stage 11 and during this time pots were maintained ontrays and watered by infiltration each two days with 4 liters of waterper 18 pots. Fertilizer was applied weekly as needed.

Disease Assessment

Treatments were randomized on each cultivar. FCR severity was determinedby using a crown rot rating (CRR) scale of 1 to 4 on the first internodeof each plant, whereby: 1=0-5%; 2=5-50%; 3=50-85%; and 4=85-100%internode discoloration. A disease severity index (DSI) was determinedby summing the individual CRRs and dividing this for the possiblemaximum value of infection and multiplying by 100 to create a DSIpercentage for each pot.

Data Analysis

Each SAR inducer treatment was assessed individually with a randomizeddesign and inducer treatments and cultivars were considered as factorsin a factorial analysis. ANOVA were performed by the SAS procedure, ProcGLM (Version 8.0, Inc. Cary, N.C., USA). Least significant difference(LSD) range test was used to compare means (α<0.05).

Results

The results are shown in Table 7. Analysis of the level of control ofthe biological and chemical inducers showed statistical differences fordisease severity for cultivar (P=0.0003) and for treatment (P=0.03) butno cultivar×treatment interactions (P=0.17) were detected. Over alltreatments, the cultivars Knudsen and Volt were less susceptible thanUtopia and MT 0550 while Hank was more susceptible than Volt butequivalent to Knudsen (P=0.0003). Knudsen and Volt are Fusarium headblight (FHB) resistant cultivars, and the resistance to FHB has beenassociated with the induction of different PR-proteins (Pritsch, et al.,2000). Knudsen is a cultivar derived from the FHB resistant genome Sumai3, which has showed that chitinases and β-1,3-glucanases are accumulatedfaster (Pritsch, et al., 2000). Analysis for each cultivar showed BmJreduced FCR severity only on the most resistant cultivar, Volt (P=0.05).These results suggest the potential to use BmJ with cultivar resistancefor control of FCR, which could be improved if this inducer isincorporated to an Integrated Pest Management with a fungicide seedtreatment. ASM reduced FCR severity only on MT 0550 (P=0.02), but overall cultivars, ASM reduced FCR severity significantly from the watercontrol while BmJ was intermediate (P=0.03).

TABLE 7 Control on Fusarium crown rot by Bacillus mycoides Isolate J andAcbenzolar-S-methyl ester in five spring wheat cultivars CultivarsDisease Severity Index (%) Treatments Utopia Knudsen MT 0550 Hank VoltAverage Control 67.38 47.95 69.47 a 54.88 50.02 a 57.94 a BmJ 55.9249.33 71.88 a 51.07 33.70 b 52.38 ab ASM 60.43 46.88 42.73 b 48.97 37.53ab 47.31 b Average 61.24 a 48.06 bc 61.36 a 51.64 ab 40.42 c P Trt =0.0325 P-value  0.5647  0.966  0.022  0.7021  0.0506 P cvs = 0.0003 ofe/cvs. Interaction Cvs × Trt P-value =  0.1703

Example 16 Control of Early Blight in Potatoes by BmJ

Field experiments assessing BmJ for control of early blight (Alternariasolani) in potatoes were conducted at Idaho. BmJ spores were applied ata rate of 62.5 grams per 50 gallons of water per acre in fourapplications at 14 day intervals. In treatment 3, Headline (Commercialstrobilurin fungicide manufactured by BASF, chemical name ispyraclostrobin) was applied in the first application followed by threeapplications of BmJ at 14 day intervals. In treatment 4 BmJ was appliedfirst and alternated with headline at 14 day intervals. The trial was arandom block design with four replicate plots per treatment. Ratings ofleaf area damage were made using standard rating methods and evaluatedusing standard statistical techniques.

TABLE 8 BmJ Potato Early Blight Trial, Idaho Treatment Rate DamageRating 1 Untreated Check 20 a  2 BmJ spores 130 gram/acre 10 b  (3 ×10¹⁰ per gram) 3 HEADLINE 6 FL OZ/A 13 ab PREFERENCE 0.25% V/V Then BmJspores 130 gram/acre (3 × 10¹⁰ per gram) 4 HEADLINE 6 FL OZ/A 6 bPREFERENCE 0.25% V/V Mix with BmJ spores 130 gram/acre (3 × 10¹⁰ pergram) 5 HEADLINE 6 FL OZ/A 10 b  PREFERENCE 0.25% V/V LSD (P = .05) 8.6Standard Deviation 5.6 Trt. 3. Headline followed by BmJ; Trt. 4.Headline mixed with BmJ Values followed by the same letter are notsignificantly different

BmJ alone provided statistically significant reduction in foliage damagecompared to untreated controls and was equivalent to Headline. Thealternation of BmJ and Headline provided the best numerical result butwas not statistically different than BmJ or Headline alone.

Example 17 Control of White Mold in Potatoes by BmJ

Sclerotinia white mold is a worldwide, economically important disease inmany crops. BmJ was tested for control of white mold disease in potatoescaused by the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Trials were conducted inIdaho and Montana.

Idaho Trial 1

A field experiment assessing BmJ for control of early blight and whitemold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) was conducted in Rupert, Id. BmJ spores(3×10¹⁰ per gram) were evaluated in two treatments, a high rate of 250grams per acre and half the rate of 31 grams/acre used in the previousearly blight trial. This test used Western Russet, a susceptiblevariety, with three applications at two week intervals. Trial was arandom block design with four replicate plots for each treatment.Disease ratings and statistical analysis were made using standardtechniques with BmJ treatments compared to a standard treatment of amixture of two chemical fungicides, Dithane and Quadris.

TABLE 9 Potato Early Blight, White Mold Trial Description % Early Blight# White mold hits Rating Date Jul 24 Aug 17 Aug 28 Aug 17 Aug 28 RatingUnit Treatment % % % NUMBER NUMBER 1 Untreated Check 4 a 45 a 63 a 2.0 a17 a 2 QUADRIS 1 a 25 a 48 a 1.0 a 12 b DITHANE 3 BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰per gram) 1 a 35 a 58 a 2.5 a 11 b 250 g 4 BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ pergram) 2 a 41 a 60 a 2.5 a 12 b 31 g LSD (P = .10) 3.5 19.1 28.3 1.90  3.9 Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different

In this trial early blight was severe and none of the treatmentsprovided statistically significant control of early blight. However,ratings for white mold incidence showed significant control in the BmJtreatment, comparable to the chemical fungicide combination. Therefore,BmJ is effective in controlling white mold.

Idaho Trial 2

The trial was conducted in Aberdeen Idaho to test different rates of BmJspores in comparison with a program used in the region by growers, withother chemical fungicides and with BmJ following a single application ofa chemical fungicide. All chemicals were applied at the rate recommendedon the product label. Chemicals fungicide trade names, active ingredientand application rate used in the trial were:

ENDURA® (boscalid), active ingredient Boscalid. Use rate in growerstandard treatment combination was equivalent to 270 grams activeingredient per hectare, alone or with the BmJ treatment 385 grams/ha.Endura is a newer chemical introduced in potatoes for disease control.

The combination of Endura followed by BmJ was to evaluate potential forcontrolling development of resistance to Endura by the pathogen.

HEADLINE® (strobilurin), a strobilurin fungicide containing the activeingredient, Pyraclostrobin. Applied at a rate equivalent to 110 gramsactive ingredient per ha. Widely used for disease control in potatoes.

DITHANE® (Mancozeb) a carbamate fungicide containing the activeingredient, Mancozeb. Applied at the rate of 1680 grams activeingredient per ha. An older off patent chemical widely used for diseasecontrol in potatoes, often in programs with other newer less toxicchemicals to manage resistance development.

BRAVO ULTREX® (chlorothalonil) containing the active ingredient,Chlorothalonil. Applied at a rate equivalent to 1.52 kg formulation perha. An older off patent chemical used for resistance management.

Grower standard was four applications: 1)Endura/Rivet; 2)Headline;3)Endura Rivet; 4) Dithane.

Dithane alone and Bravo Ultrex were applied in three applications. Rivetis an insecticide included in the grower standard to control insects.

BmJ was applied in four applications. Three rates were tested 0.33 g/1,0.66 g/l and 0.99 g/l of BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) in water. TheBmJ/Endura treatment was a single Endura application followed by threeBmJ applications at the rate of 0.66 g/l of BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ pergram). The three rates of BmJ spores are approximately equivalent to theapplication of 69, 138 or 207 grams of BmJ spores, in 190 liter of waterper ha.

Four replicate plots were sprayed for each different treatment. Diseaseincidence and severity was rated by the University of Idaho extensionresearcher using standard techniques for observation of white moldlesions. Results expressed as relative area under the disease progresscurve are shown in the following table. All three rates of BmJ showedstatistically significant reduction in disease with the 0.99 g/l orthree ounce/acre rate and the combination of Endura followed by BmJspores showing control equivalent to the grower standard programcurrently in use.

TABLE 10 BmJ Potato White Mold Trial, Aberdeen Idaho White MoldTreatment RAUDPC Untreated 5.7 a  Grower Std 0.1 d  BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰per gram) 0.33 g/l 3.2 ab  BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ per gram) 0.66 g/l 2.5bcd BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ per gram) 0.99 g/l 0.2 cd  BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰per gram) 0.66 g/l 0 d    Endura Dithane 3.0 abc Bravo Ultrex 2.8 bcdValues followed by the same letter are not significantly differentMontana Trial

The trial in Montana compared two treatment regimes of BmJ spores withseveral different chemical fungicides used for disease control inpotatoes. Chemicals fungicide trade names and active ingredient andapplication at recommended label rates of end use formulation in thetrial were:

-   -   ECHO ZN® (chlorothalonil), active ingredient, Chlorothalonil.        Application rate 2 pints per acre    -   LUNA TRANQUILITY® (Fluopyram and Scala) A blend of two active        ingredients, Fluopyram and Scala. Application rate 11 oz per        acre    -   BAS 700)4F, 4.6 oz per acre, and BAS 703AG F 5.5 oz per acre.        These are experimental fungicides being tested for disease        control in potatoes, active ingredients are proprietary. Results        are included for comparison with chemical fungicides under        development for control of Sclerotinia white mold.    -   PROLINE® (triazolinthione) A triazolinthione fungicide, active        ingredient, Prothioconazol. Application rate 5.7 oz/acre    -   ENDURA® (boscalid), active ingredient boscalid as described        above, 5.5 oz per acre.    -   BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) were applied at a rate equivalent        to one ounce in 20 gallons of water per acre.

The ECHO ZN® (chlorothalonil)/LUNA TRANQUILITY® (Fluopyram and Scala)and

BmJ spores were tested in two different treatments with differentapplication timing: 1) one application at 10% flower bloom; and 2) twoapplications, at 10% bloom followed by a second application 10 dayslater. Other chemical treatments were applied once at 10% bloom. Alltreatments were applied to four replicate plots. Disease ratings andharvest estimates were made by Montana State University extensionresearchers. Disease severity expressed as number of stem infectionlesions in 10 row feet of plants and yield expressed as hundred weightper acre are shown in the following table.

Both BmJ treatments showed statistically significant reduction indisease with the two applications comparable to the chemical fungicidetreatments. BmJ treated plots showed the highest yield, statisticallysuperior to the untreated and equivalent to or greater than the chemicalfungicide treatments.

TABLE 11 Sclerotinia Fungicide Treatment Results- var. RussetBurbank-location Manhattan, Mt Number of stem infections per Yield/AcreTreatment Timing 10 feet row CWT 1. Untreated control 38.3 a  190.8 2.Echo ZN 10% bloom + 2.8 c 218.3 Luna Tranquility 10 days 3. Echo ZN 10%bloom 5.5 c 223.1 Luna Tranquility 4. Endura 10% bloom 3.0 c 219.4 5.BAS 700 04F 10% bloom 4.5 c 230.8 6. BAS 703 AG F 10% bloom 16.8 b 216.5 7. BMJ at 10% flower 10% bloom 19.5 b  218.3 8. BMJ 10% bloom + 10.3 b c 232.8 10 days 9. Proline at 5.7 oz/A 10% bloom  10.0 b c 228.9Flsd 0.05 11   14

Example 18 Control of Potato Virus Y by BmJ

In three repeated experiments using the potato cultivar Norkotah,induction of resistance with Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ) preventedinfection with PVY in three separate experiments; control was 38%, 100%and 50%-over 45 days post inoculation compared to check plants inducedwith either dead BmJ or water. Experiments were conducted ingreenhouses. Replicate plants were treated with BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ pergram) and applied 5 days before inoculation of the plants with potatovirus Y. PVY infection was assessed by leaf damage ratings and by ELISAassays of leaf extract to determine virus titers.

Field trials in Oregon under natural infection conditions wereinconclusive due to very low virus infection although numerically BmJplants treated 4 times at 14 day intervals had 6% less PVY infection 30days after emergence and 4% less infection 60 days after emergence.

Example 19 BmJ for Control of Bacterial Spot in Tomato Florida Trial

The tomato trial was conducted in Jupiter, Fla. The trial was designedas a complete randomized block with four replicates per treatment. BmJspores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) were applied to plants. Application volume was30 to 75 gallons per acre, increasing as the plants grew. The agronomicsystem replicated commercial production using raised beds with plasticmulch and drip irrigation.

The trial was designed to be a comprehensive evaluation of BmJ testingpreparations alone and in combination with chemical agents.

TABLE 12 Trial Design Treatments Rates Application Dates* 1. UntreatedCheck — — 2. BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ .33 g/L Day 2, 10, 17, 22, 28, 37, pergram) 41, 49, 56, 63, 70, and 77 3. BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ .33 g/L Day 2,10, 17, 22, 28, 37, per gram) 41, 49, 56, 63, 70, and 77 Bravo WS Tankmix 2.5 pts/A 4. BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ .33 g/L Day 2, 17, 28, 41, 56, 70per gram) Bravo WS Alternate 2.5 pts/A Day 10, 22, 37, 49, 63, 77 5. BmJspores (3 × 10¹⁰ .33 g/L Day 2, 10, 17, 22, 28, 37, per gram) 41, 49,56, 63, 70, and 77 Manex mix 1.6 qt/A 6. Kocide 2000 2 lb/A Day 2, 17,28, 41, 56, 70 Manex 1.6 qt/A Bravo WS 2.5 pts/A Day 10, 22, 37, 49, 63,77 *The date when evaluations began was set as Day 1.

Naturally occurring bacterial spot remained low due to dry weatherconditions until after the artificial inoculation with bacterial spot onDay 31. The trial was inoculated with Xanthomonas campestris infectedtomato foliage from the Immokalee, Fla. area. This foliage was blendedwith 6L of water and 1 ml of Silwet and sprayed out using a backpackcarbon dioxide pressurized sprayer over the four plants at each end ofeach plot. To encourage bacterial disease development, overheadirrigation was placed in the trial on Day 37, and run 20-30 minutes/dayexcept for 2 days following trial applications.

Active bacterial spot disease incidence and severity were evaluated fromDay 1 to Day 84. Results are shown in the following tables in bolddenote significant differences from the untreated control. BmJ combinedor alternated with Bravo (Chlorthalonil) reduced disease incidence andseverity on three to four rating dates compared to controls and wassimilar to a standard commercial treatment of Kocide (copper), Manex andBravo. The combination of BmJ with Manex showed reduced diseaseincidence on four rating dates compared top three dates for the standardcommercial treatment. The combination of BmJ and MANEX® (Manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate) showed reduced disease severity on six ofthe rating dates, equal to the standard treatment.

TABLE 13 BmJ Tomato Bacterial Spot, Florida Trial Mean Percent BacterialSpot Disease Incidence Data Collecting Dates Day Day Day Day Day Day DayDay Day Day Day Day Day Treatment 1 8 14 21 27 34 41 48 55 62 69 76 84Mean Percent Bacterial Spot Disease Incidence Untreated 0 0 0 0 3 70 2355 28 65 100 100 100 BmJ 0 0 3 8 5 78 35 63 13 48 100 100 100 BmJ/Bravo0 0 3 13 3 40 20 20 3 43 100 100 100 BmJ/Bravo 0 0 0 0 5 40 15 20 10 30100 100 100 BmJ/Manex 0 0 8 0 0 30 13 20 3 18 100 100 100 Kocide/ 0 0 03 3 35 23 25 3 0 100 100 100 Manex/ Bravo

TABLE 14 BmJ Tomato Bacterial Spot, Florida Trial Mean Bacterial SpotDisease Severity Data Collecting Dates Day Day Day Day Day Day Day DayDay Day Day Day Day Treatment 1 8 14 21 27 34 41 48 55 62 69 76 84 MeanBacterial Spot Disease Severity Untreated 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.72.7 3.4 3.2 BmJ 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 2.1 3.0 2.8 BmJ/Bravo0 0 0 0.1 0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 BmJ/Bravo 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.20.2 0.1 0.3 2.4 2.7 2.6 BmJ/Manex 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 1.8 2.02.0 Kocide/ 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0 0 1.8 2.1 2.3 Manex/ Bravo

The results suggest BmJ is effective in controlling bacterial spot, andthere are synergistic effects from a combination of BmJ with Bravo orManex.

Example 20 BmJ for Control of Bacterial Spot in Peppers, Florida Trial

BmJ was evaluated for control of bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris)in peppers at Belle Glade, Florida. The trial was conducted using BmJspores (3×10¹⁰ per gram). The trial was designed as a random block withfour replicate plots per treatment with four applications withtreatments sprayed to runoff. BmJ was compared with standard chemicaltreatments and with the biological fungicide Serenade. Treatments andresults are shown in the following table.

TABLE 15 BmJ Pepper Bacterial spot Florida Bacterial Spot Disease Rating(foliar damage) Treatment Feb 9 Feb 12 Untreated 43 a   49 a  Manzate/Cabrio  16.3 bcd 11.8 cd Manzate/Kocide 24.7 b  18 cd  Serenade/Biotune 22.7 bc 25 b   Serenade/Cuprofix/Biotune 12.5 d  10.4cd BmJ 15.3 cd 19 cd   BmJ/Manzate 12 d   8.6 d Values followed by thesame letter are not significantly different BmJ was applied four timesat 25 gram/acre (3 × 10¹⁰ spores/gram), and other products wereapplication four times as label rates. Note: higher disease ratingreflects more foliar damage from the disease

This result was similar to the Florida tomato trial. BmJ alone providedsome control, however the best treatment was the BmJ Manzate combinationwhich was superior to the grower standard of Manzate/Kocide. BmJ wasalso significantly better than the competing biological Serenade bothapplied alone (Biotune is an adjuvant) and in combination with copper.The results suggest BmJ is effective in controlling bacterial spot, andthere are synergistic effects from a combination of BmJ with Manzate.

Example 21 BmJ for Control of Gray Mold in Tomatoes

Two trials were conducted in greenhouse tomatoes to evaluate BmJ and203-7 for control of gray mold, Botrytis cinerea. In these trials BmJwas compared to other biological agents. Serenade is a commercialproduct containing Bacillus subtilis and T-22 is a commercialformulation of a strain of the fungus Trichoderma harzianum. The testwas conducted using BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram).

In these trials the total amount of gray mold was light throughout andno stem cankers developed on plants receiving any of the treatments.However, all treatments had significantly less disease than theuntreated pathogen control. In both trials BmJ treatment resulted in theleast amount of disease when compared to all of the other treatments asshown in tables below. Plants treated with 203-7 and BmJ had the highestyield when compared to Serenade, but they were not significantlydifferent from the pathogen control or T22 (P=0.05).

TABLE 16 Control of Botrytis cinerea in greenhouse tomatoes bybiological products Trial 1 Leaf Lesion Total Yield/rep Rating(grams) 1. Pathogen Control 1.48 5992.1 2. 203-7 0.87 6213.3 3. BmJ (1 ×10⁷ spores/ml) 0.60 6213.1 4. Serenade 0.82 5192.8 5. T22 0.81 5701.0LSD_((0.05)) 0.18 979.1

TABLE 17 Control of Botrytis cinerea in greenhouse tomatoes bybiological products Trial 2 Leaf Lesion Total Yield/rep Rating(grams) 1. Pathogen Control 1.01 A  4974 AB 2. 203-7 0.608 B 5285 A   3.BmJ (1 × 10⁷ spores/ml) 0.467 C 5074 AB 4. Serenade   0.521 BC 4244 B  5. T22 0.635 B 4671 AB Values followed by the same letter are notsignificantly different

Example 22 Foliar Application of BmJ and 203-7 for Control of RootDiseases in Geranium

A greenhouse trial was conducted to evaluate control of root diseases inornamentals. In this trial geranium plants were treated by foliarapplication of BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) or the Bacillus isolate203-7, and after 5 days, transplanted into soil that was infested withthe root rotting pathogen Pythium aphanidermatum. Treatment with BmJsignificantly reduced stunting and root discoloration in plants that hadbeen inoculated with the root rotting pathogen Pythium aphanidermatumwhen compared to the pathogen inoculated control. We believe that thisis the first report of a foliar applied biocontrol agent reducing adisease caused by a soil-borne root pathogen.

TABLE 18 Effect of a foliar application of BmJ and 203-7 on root diseaseof geranium caused by Pythium aphanidermatum Stunting Root DiscolorationUntreated Control 0.3b 0.07b Pathogen Control 1.0a 0.81a BmJ (1 × 10⁷spores/ml) 0.4b 0.15b 203-7 1.1a 0.15b LSD_((0.05)) 0.6 0.25 Valuesfollowed by the same letter are not significantly different

Example 23 BmJ for Control of Powdery Mildew in Cantaloupe (CucumisMelon)

BmJ was evaluated for control of powdery mildew (Podosphora xanthii) ina field trial conducted at Yuma, Ariz. BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) wereapplied at the rate of 25 grams per acre. The trial was a random blockdesign with four replicate plots per treatments with leaf damage ratingsmade by standard techniques.

Treatments compared BmJ to a number of chemical and biologicaltreatments. The trial rated powdery mildew on both the upper and lowerleaf surface as some systemic treatments might provide improved controlwhere coverage of contact material might be poor in dense foliage.

TABLE 19 BmJ - Cantaloupe Powdery Mildew Trial, Arizona Leaf DamageRating Treatment Upper Leaf Lower Leaf Untreated 3.7 4.5 BmJ (3 × 10¹⁰spores per gram) 3.1 3.1 Procure 0.3 0.3 Procure/BmJ 0.1 0.2Serenade/Silwet 2.6 3.6 Sonata/Silwet 2.6 3.7 Silwet 2.3 2.7 LSD 0.1 0.2

BmJ alone provided statistically significant control but much less thanthe chemical treatments. BmJ tank mixed with Procure did not provideincreased control compared to Procure alone. Compared to Sonata andSerenade, the other biological products in the trial BmJ yielded lesscontrol on the upper leaf surface but greater control on lower leafsurface. However, these other biological products were applied withSilwet which provided comparable levels of disease control when appliedalone. The BmJ treatments were applied in plain water.

Example 24 BmJ for Control of Downey Mildew in Squash

BmJ was evaluated for control of downey mildew caused by the fungusPseudoperonospora cubensis in a field trial conducted at Belle Glade,Florida. BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) were used. The trial evaluated BmJalone and in combination with chemical fungicides. There were a total ofnine weekly sprays. Plots were rated for downy mildew severity on May 4and May 11. An estimate was made of the percentage of foliage covered bydisease lesions and foliage lost to disease combined into one rating.Fruit were harvested from all 12 plants (22 ft of row) in each plot onMay 18, counted, and weighed. Cucumber leaves with abundant, sporulatinglesions of downy mildew were collected from a naturally infectedcucumber field in Boynton Beach and spread in the guard rows (untreated)on the east side of the experimental plots on April 19. This inoculationand weather combined to create an explosive downy mildew experiment,resulting in severe foliar damage by harvest. The 11 treatments andresults for this trial are shown in the following table.

TABLE 20 Efficacy of Foliar Sprays for Management of Downy Mildew ofWinter Squash Downy Mildew² Number of fruit Weight of fruit Treatmentand rate/A¹ May 4 May 11 harvested harvested (lb) Untreated (control) 63b   87.3 a   41.5 N.S.⁴ 31.9 N.S.⁴ Bmj (25 g/20 gal water) 81.3 a  83.3ab  49.3 32.1 Bmj (25 g/20 gal water) + Cabrio (2 applications afterdisease 59.5 bc 77.8 abc  53.3 36.8 appeared)(1 lb) Sonata (2 qt) +Biotune (0.2 m/100 ml water) + Previcur (1 pt) 53.3 bc 75.8 abcd 54.837.6 alternated with Sonata (2 qt) + Biotune (0.2 m/100 ml water) +Nutri-Phyte (1 pt) Sonata (4 qt) + Biotune (0.2 ml/100 ml water) 50 c  73.3 abcd 45.8 32.3 Sonata (2 qt) + Biotune (0.2 m/100 ml water) +Previcur (1 pt) 10.8 d  59.5 cde  57.0 36.2 alternated with Sonata (2qt) + Biotune (0.2 m/100 ml water) + Manzate 75 DF (1.5 lb) Previcur (1qt) alternated with Bravo Weather Stik (1.5 qt) 9.2 d 41.3 e   51.5 37.4Sonata (2 qt) + Biotune (0.2 m/100 ml water) + Previcur (1 pt) 9 d  54.5 de  49.0 32.2 alternated with Bravo Weather Stik (1 qt) + Manzate75 DF (1 qt) Cabrio (12 oz) + Forum (6 oz) alternated with Previcur (18.8 d 62.3 bcde 48.0 28.8 qt) + Bravo Weather Stik (1.5 qt) Bmj (25 g/20gal water) + Bravo Weather Stik (1.5 qt) 8.8 d 50.7 e   48.0 33.1 Bmj(25 g/20 gal water) alternated with Bravo Weather Stik 8.8 d 45 e   49.3 35.7 (1.5 qt) ¹Rates are formulation/acre. ²Ratings are estimatesof percentage of foliage damaged by downy mildew May 4 and May 11.Adaxial surface used for downy mildew ratings. There were 9 spray datesMarch 16, 23, and 30, April 6, 13, 19 and 27, and May 4 and 11

Several treatments greatly reduced downy mildew severity. Bmj+BravoWeather Stik as a weekly tank mix or alternated weekly were quiteeffective. The biological agents (BmJ and Sonata) by themselves did notprovide acceptable levels of control. However, it is clear thatcombinations or rotations of the biological agents with chemicalfungicides enhance disease control. No differences in yield, measuredboth as the number and weight of harvested fruit were found.

Example 25 BmJ and 203-7 for Virus Control in Tomatoes and Cucumber

In greenhouse trials treatment with BmJ and Bacillus 203-7 reduced virustiters in both cucumber and tomato with cucumber mosaic virus andtobacco mosaic virus, respectively. For experiments with each species,plants were sprayed to near-run-off with 10⁷ BmJ and 203-7 spores/mlusing a hand-held sprayer 5 days prior to inoculation with the virus,and again just prior to inoculation. Plants were inoculated using plantsap from virus-infected plants for the corresponding pathosystem. In thetomato experiment, visual symptoms of the tobacco mosaic virus did notdevelop, but ELISA analysis revealed a reduction in virus titers forboth the BmJ and the 203-7 treated plants when compared to the untreatedcontrol. The differences were expressed as a decrease in optical densityat 405 nm.

TABLE 21 BmJ and 203-7 tobacco mosaic virus in tomato Optical DensityTreatment at 405 nm Inoculated Control 2.35a BmJ 1.63b 203-7 1.11bLSD_(0.05) 0.71

In two experiments in cucumber, reductions in both visible symptoms andvirus titers were recorded when compared to the inoculated control.Disease onset was extended by 0.3 days, and percent disease was reducedfrom 75% to 25%. Virus titers were also reduced and were measured usingoptical density of individual sample wells in the ELISA assay.

TABLE 22 BmJ and 203-7 cucumber mosaic virus in cucumber. OpticalDisease Symptom % symptomatic Symptom Density Treatment Onset (days)plants Expression at 405 nm Inoculated 6.7 75 Mosaic, 2.37a controlWilting BmJ 7.0 25 Mosaic 1.4b 203-7 7.0 25 Mosaic 0.49c LSD_(0.05) NoStats No Stats No Stats 0.69

Example 26 BmJ Field Trial, Control of Watermelon Vein Decline (WVD),Squash Vein Yellowing Virus in Florida

Watermelon vein decline is caused by the squash vein yellowing virusvectored by white flies. The Florida field trial evaluated a number ofproducts both for white fly control and for reduction in diseasesymptoms. BmJ spores (3×10¹⁰ per gram) were used and appliedapproximately weekly at a rate of 1 ounce formulation per acre (equalsto 28 gram/acre BmJ with 3×10¹⁰ spores per gram). BmJ had no effect onwhite fly population but did show reduction in disease severity with areduction in area under the disease progress curve. BmJ as a standaloneproduct was equal to or in some cases superior to treatments withmultiple insecticides. In the table below, some of the control fortreatments containing insecticides is due to reductions in white flypopulation. This means that some reduction in virus infection in theplants was a result of the insecticides reducing numbers of white flyvectors, as distinguished from BmJ treatment which directly controls thedisease as BmJ does not kill white fly.

TABLE 23 Watermelon Vein Decline, Mean Disease Severity Ratings^(z)Application Trt # Treatment/Rate timing^(x, y) 28 Apr. 8 May 16 May 23May 5 Jun. AUDPC 1 Untreated control 0.73^(w) 3.2 a 4.0 a 4.75 a 5.0 a63.4 a 2 Admire Pro 10.5 oz 0 (drench) 0.53 2.83 abc 3.25 bcd 4.03 dc4.75 ab 57.0 de Fulfill 50WG 2.75 oz 2, 3 Thionex 3EC 1.33 qt 4, 5, 8Oberon 2SC 8.5 fl. oz 6, 7 Knack 11EC 10 fl oz 9 3 Actigard 50WG 0.75oz/A A through K 0.42 3.03 ab 3.82 ab 4.65 ab 4.95 ab 62.4 abc 4Actigard 50WG 0.75 oz/A A through K 0.58 2.33 bc 3.0 cd 3.33 e 4.33 c49.7 f Admire Pro 10.5 oz 0 (drench) Fulfill 50WG 2.75 oz 2, 3 Thionex3EC 1.33 qt 4, 5, 8 Oberon 2SC 8.5 fl. oz 6, 7 Knack 11EC 10 fl oz 9 5Metarhizium anisopliae strain F52 A through K 0.8 2.9 ab 3.5 abc 4.3 abc4.9 ab 59.5 bcd (11% a.i.; Tick-Ex EC) 29 oz/A 6 Venom 70SG 6.0 oz 0(drench) 0.58 2.53 abc 3.28 bcd 3.85 cde 4.73 b 55.7 e Fulfill 50WG 2.75oz 2, 3 Thionex 3EC 1.33 qt 4, 5, 8 Oberon 2SC 8.5 fl. oz 6, 7 Knack11EC 10 fl oz 9 7 QRD 416 2 qt/A A through K 0.43 2.28 bc 3.75 ab 4.77 a4.95 ab 63.2 a 8 Cabrio 20EG 16 oz A through K 0.65 1.98 c 2.75 d 3.63de 4.9 ab 55.4 e 9 JMS Stylet Oil 0.50% 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 0.23 2.0 c 3.33abcd 3.93 dc 4.7 b 56.1 de 8, 9 Fulfill 50WG 2.75 oz 2, 3 Thionex 3EC1.33 qt 4, 5, 8 Oberon 2SC 8.5 fl. oz 6, 7 Knack 11EC 10 fl oz/A 9 10Bmj (3 × 10¹⁰ spores/g Bacillus A through K 0.575 2.7 abc 3.35 abcd 4.15bcd 4.9 ab 58.8 cde mycoides) 1 oz/A 11 Prev-Am 0.4% v:v (1..12) Athrough K 0.525 2.95 ab 4.0 a 4.8 a 4.93 ab 63.2 a LSD 0.09 P < .01 P <.01 <0.0005 <0.0001 ^(z)Disease severity ratings based on scale of 0-5where 0 = no symptoms of vein decline and 5= plant dead. ^(y)Insecticidesprays: 0 = 5 Mar. (transplanting); 1= 13 Mar.; 2 = 18 Mar.; 3 = 25Mar.:, 4 = 1 Apr.: 5 = 8 Apr.; 6 = 17 Apr.; 7 = 29 Apr.; 8 = 6 May; 9 =13 May ^(x)Other sprays: on A = 12 Mar.; B = 19 Mar.; C = 26 Mar.; D = 2Apr.; E = 9 Apr.; F = 16 Apr.; G = 23 Apr.; H = 30 Apr.; I = 7 May; J =14 May; K = 21 May ^(w)Means followed by the same letter or no letterare not significantly different, LSD P < .01

Example 27 BmJ and Virus Control

Tobacco Mosaic Virus

Both tomato and tobacco plants were used in studies where plants eithersprayed or not sprayed with BmJ or 203-7. Experiments were done ingreenhouse using mechanical inoculation.

The reduction of virus titers following treatment with BmJ and 203-7 hasbeen documented in multiple experiments for both cucumber and tomatowith cucumber mosaic virus and tobacco mosaic virus respectively. Forexperiments with each species, plants were sprayed to near-run-off with1×10⁷ cfu/ml BmJ and 203-7 washed spores using a hand-held sprayer 5days prior to inoculation with the virus, and again just prior toinoculation. Plants were inoculated using plant sap from virus-infectedplants for the corresponding pathosystem.

In the tomato experiment, strong visual symptoms of the tobacco mosaicvirus did not develop, but ELISA analysis revealed a reduction in virustiters and infection for both the BmJ and the 203-7 treated plants whencompared to the untreated control. Tobacco inoculations were similar.The differences were expressed as a decrease in optical density at 405nm (Table 24). This data represents 3 experiments with 10 plants pertreatment in each experiment.

TABLE 24 Reductions in tobacco mosaic virus titer in plants treated withthe potential biopesticides BmJ and 203-7. Tomato Tobacco Treatment %virus titer % infection % virus titer % infection Inoculated 100 a  100100 100 Control BmJ 68 b 65 48 33 203-7 47 b 57 47 57 LSD_(0.05) 21   1523 19

In experiments on cucumber similar methods were used. Results of threerepeated experiments with 10 plants per experiment showed reductions inboth visible symptoms and virus titers when compared to the inoculatedcontrol. Disease onset was extended by 0.3 days, and percent disease wasreduced from 75% to 25%. Virus titers were also reduced and weremeasured using optical density of individual sample wells in the ELISAassay Table 25.

TABLE 25 Reductions in disease and virus titer in cucumber plantstreated with BmJ and 203-7 prior to inoculation with cucumber mosaicvirus. Disease Symptom % symptomatic Symptom % virus Treatment Onset(days) plants Expression titer Inoculated 6.7 75 Mosaic, 100 a  controlWilting BmJ 7.0 25 Mosaic 58 b 203-7 7.0 25 Mosaic 16 c LSD_(0.05) NoStats No Stats No Stats 18  Potato Virus X

In 3 separate mechanical inoculation trials we were unable todemonstrate control of PVX. Further trials are needed to confirm theresults as we do not understand why we failed to obtain control ofPotato Virus X.

Potato Virus Y

(1) Greenhouse Test

Trial 1 Mechanical Transmission

Experiments were done in a greenhouse using mechanical transmission. Themechanical transmission was performed by using sap from infected plantswhich were grounded by mortar and pestle in phosphate buffer on ice.Carborundum was used to pick up the sap and rub the sap on leaves ofplants. Plants were sprayed to near-run-off with BmJ washed spores(1×10⁷ cfu/ml) using a hand-held sprayer 5 days before virus inoculationand at 14, 28, and 42 days post inoculation. The results indicate thatBmJ is effective in controlling PVY.

TABLE 26 PVY Greenhouse Test % PVY % PVY % PVY Average Treatment Trial 1Trial 2 Trial 3 PVY Dead BmJ + PVY 25 50 100 58.3 a No PVY 0 0 0 0 c BmJ induction 5 5 0 75 26.6 b days before inoculation with PVY + BmJ @14, 28, and 42 days post inoculationThe results indicate that BmJ can induce resistance to PVY in plants.Trial 2 Aphid Transmission

Greenhouse aphid transmission experiments were conducted. Theexperiments were repeated three times. Washed BmJ spores at 1×10⁷ cfu/mlwere sprayed on the plants 5 days before and 14 days after the aphidtransmission. Ten green peach aphids from PVY infected potato plantswere transferred to each plant. Twenty replications for each treatmentwere used. The results are shown in FIG. 6.

It is interesting that both live and dead BmJ applications resulted intotal control of aphid transmission. The results indicate that BmJ(either dead or alive) can reduce PVY infection in plants transmitted byinsects. Therefore, BmJ can be used as repellence against insects suchas aphids.

(2) Natural Infection (Aphid Transmission) Test

Trial 1

Field trial was conducted at Hermiston, Oreg. to test the ability of BmJto control natural PVY infection transmitted by aphids. Plants wereeither sprayed or not sprayed every 14 days with 1×10⁷ cfu/ml (15gal/A).

Trial 2

Another field trial was conducted at Hermiston, Oreg. to test theability of BmJ to control natural PVY infection transmitted by aphids.The results are shown in Table 27 below and FIG. 5.

TABLE 27 Incidence of Potato Virus Y infection in Ranger potato asaffected by Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ), rouging and insecticidetreatments. % PVY % PVY % PVY % PVY % PVY % PVY Treatment 6/6 7/14 8/189/14 12/15 total BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ spores per gram) 0 0 1 2 1.5 3.5applied at 2.0 oz/A (56 gram/acre) emergence, and every 14 days till9/14 BmJ spores (3 × 10¹⁰ spores per gram) 0 0 1 1.5 0 1.5 applied at2.0 oz/A (56 gram/acre) emergence and every 14 days till 9/14 + rougingof PVY positive plants Admire Pro 8.7 oz/A at plant + BmJ spores 0 2 0 33 3.0 (3 × 10¹⁰ spores per gram) applied at 2.0 oz/A (56 gram/acre)emergence and every 14 days till 9/14 + Assail 1.7 oz/A + @ 60 days,Fulfill 5.5oz/A @ 75 days, Beleaf @ 75 days and Leverage 3.8 oz/A @ 87days post emergence + rouging of PVY positive plants Admire Pro 8.7 oz/Aat plant + Assail 1.7 0 3 0 4 4.5 4.5 oz/A @ 60 days, Fulfill 5.5 oz/A @75 days, Beleaf @ 75 days and Leverage 3.8 oz/A @ 87 days postemergence + rouging of PVY positive plants Untreated 0 3 2 8 10 10 FLSD0.05 ns ns ns ns 4.3 5.8

Plots were 4 reps of 50 plants (2 rows of 25 plants). Each ranger plantwas separated by an ‘All Blue’ plant (a blue tubered cultivar used tospace ranger plants). Rouged plants (infected plants) were removed fromthe plot and the spot flagged. ‘All Blue’ and ‘Premire’ varieties plantswere used as borders. A randomized complete block design was used.

A single tuber was collected from each plant at harvest and planted inthe greenhouse after treating tubers with ethylene and gibberelic acid.PVY rating were done 40 days after emergence.

All treatments were significantly different from the untreated but werenot different from each other.

Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus

Trials were conducted to test ability of BmJ to control wheat streakmosaic virus. Virus was inoculated onto plants (Cultivar McNeal springwheat) by mechanical transmission. The mechanical transmission wasperformed by using sap from infected plants which were grounded bymortar and pestle in phosphate buffer on ice. Carborundum was used topick up the sap and rub the sap on leaves of plants. Plants were eithersprayed or not sprayed with 1×10⁷ cfu/ml washed BmJ spores 5 days beforeand 14 days after inoculation.

No significant difference in infection was found when mechanicaltransmission was used. However where wheat curl mites were used fortransmission in three repeated experiments, transmission wassignificantly reduced (See Table 28). The results suggest that BmJtreatment can repel pathogen transmitting insects from feeding onplants, leading to reduced virus infections.

TABLE 28 Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus Test Treatment Non-Infected InfectedNontreated Control 10/10 100%  0/10  0% WSMV Control 12/20 60% 8/20 40%BacJ/WSMV 17/20 85% 3/20 15%

The foregoing detailed description has been given for clearness ofunderstanding only and no unnecessary limitations should be understoodtherefrom as modifications will be obvious to those skilled in the art.It is not an admission that any of the information provided herein isprior art or relevant to the presently claimed inventions, or that anypublication specifically or implicitly referenced is prior art.

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used hereinhave the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill inthe art to which this invention belongs.

While the invention has been described in connection with specificembodiments thereof, it will be understood that it is capable of furthermodifications and this application is intended to cover any variations,uses, or adaptations of the invention following, in general, theprinciples of the invention and including such departures from thepresent disclosure as come within known or customary practice within theart to which the invention pertains and as may be applied to theessential features hereinbefore set forth and as follows in the scope ofthe appended claims.

REFERENCES

-   1. F B Abeles, R P Bosshart, L E Forrence and W H Habig, Preparation    and purification of glucanase and chitinase from bean leaves. Plant    Physiology 47 (1970), pp. 129-134.-   2. S Alstrom, Induction of disease resistance in common bean    susceptible to halo blight bacterial pathogen after seed    bacterisation with rhizosphere pseudomonads. Journal of Genetic and    Applied Microbiology 37 (1991), pp. 495-501.-   3. A J Anderson, Studies on the structure and elicitor activity of    fungal glucans. Canadian Journal of Botany 58 (1980), pp. 2343-2348.-   4. J H Andrews, Biological control in the phyllosphere. Annual    Review of Phytopathology 30 (1992), pp. 603-635.-   5. A Braun-Kiewnick, S Kiewnick and B J Jacobsen, Induction of    systemic resistance by antagonistic Bacillus sp. and the chemical    inducer benzothiadiazole controls Cercospora leaf spot of sugar    beet. Phytopathology 88 (1998), p. S10.-   6. W M Bugbee, Cercospora beticola tolerant to triphenyltin    hydroxide. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 32 (1995), pp. 51-79.-   7. J M Chittoor, J E Leach and F F White, Induction of peroxidase    during defense against pathogens. In: A A Agrawal, S Tuzun and E    Bent, Editors, Induced Plant Defenses Against Pathogens and    Herbivores, APS Press, St Paul (1999), pp. 171-193.-   8. Y Cohen, M Reuveni and A Baider, Local and systemic activity of    BABA (DL-3-aminobutyric acid) against Plasmopara viticola in    grapevines. European Journal of Plant Pathology 105 (1999), pp.    351-361.-   9. Y R Cohen, (3-aminobutyric acid-induced resistance against plant    pathogens. Plant Disease 86 (2002), pp. 448-457.-   10. T P Delaney, Genetic dissection of acquired resistance to    disease. Plant Physiology 113 (1997), pp. 5-12.-   11. N Doke, Generation of superoxide anion by potato tuber    protoplasts during the hypersensitive response to hyphal wall    components of Phytophthora infestans and specific inhibition of the    reaction by suppressors of hypersensitivity. Physiological Plant    Pathology 23 (1983), pp. 359-367-   12. J E Duffus and E G Ruppel, Diseases. In: D A Cooke and R K    Scott, Editors, Diseases in the Sugarbeet Crop, Chapman and Hall,    London (1993), pp. 346-427.-   13. S Gallagher, S E Winston, A Fuller and J G R Hurrell,    Immunoblotting and Immunodetection. In: F M Ausubel, R Brent, R E    Kingston, D D Moore, J G Seidman, J A Smith and K Struhl, Editors,    Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc,    New York (1997), pp. 10.8.1-10.8.16.-   14. T E Gottschalk, J D Mikkelsen, K K Nielsen and J Brunstedt,    Immunolocalization and characterization of a (β-1,3-glucanase from    sugar beet, deduction of its primary structure and nucleotide    sequence by cDNA and genomic cloning. Plant Science 132 (1998), pp.    153-167.-   15. R Hammerschmidt, E M Nuckles and J Kuc, Association of enhanced    peroxidase activity with induced resistance of cucumber to    Colletotrichum Iagenarium. Physiological Plant Pathology 20 (1982),    pp. 73-82.-   16. R Hofstein and A Chapple, Commercial development of    biofungicides. In: F R Hall and J J Menn, Editors, Biopesticides:    Use and Delivery, Humana Press, Totowa (1999), pp. 77-102.-   17. S W Hutcheson, Current concepts of active defense in plants.    Annual Review of Phytopathology 36 (1998), pp. 59-90.-   18. B J Jacobsen, N K Zidack, J Ansley, B Larson, J L A Eckhoff and    J Bergman, Integrated management of cercospora leaf spot. Sugarbeet    Research and Extension Reports 32 (2001), pp. 317-320.-   19. E Jongedijk, H Tigelaar, J S C van Roekel, S A Bres-Vloemans, I    Dekker, P J M van den Elzen, B J C Cornelissen and L S Melchers,    Synergistic activity of chitinases and (β-1,3-glucanases enhances    fungal resistance in transgenic tomato plants. Euphytica 85 (1995),    pp. 173-180.-   20. Kleinwanzler Saatzucht, Ag, Einbeck, 1970, Cercospora Tafel.    Kleinwanzleber Saatzacht Ag, 14 p-   21. K Klement, Method of obtaining fluid from the intercellular    spaces of foliage and the fluid's merit as substrate for    phytobacterial pathogens. Phytopathology 55 (1965), pp. 1033-1034.-   22. N Kokalis-Burelle, P A Backman, R Rodriquez-Kabana and L D    Ploper, Potential for biological control of early leafspot of peanut    using Bacillus cereus and chitin as foliar amendments. Biological    Control 2 (1992), pp. 321-328.-   23. J Kuc, Induced immunity to plant disease. BioScience 32 (1992),    pp. 854-860.-   24. M Legrand, S Kauffmannn, P Geoffroy and B Fritig, Biological    function of pathogenesis-related proteins: four tobacco    pathogenesis-related proteins are chitinases. Proceedings of the    National Academy of the Sciences, USA 84 (1987), pp. 6750-6754.-   25. T Lotan, N Ori and R Fluhr, Pathogenesis-related proteins are    developmentally regulated in tobacco flowers. The Plant Cell 1    (1989), pp. 881-887.-   26. T Maniatis, E F Fritsch and J. Sambrock. Molecular Cloning: A    Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring    Harbor (1982) p. 18.56-18.57.-   27. F Mauch, B Mauch-Mani and T Boller, Antifungal hydrolases in pea    tissue. Plant Physiology 88 (1988), pp. 936-942.-   28. J-P Metraux and T h Boller, Local and systemic induction of    chitinase in cucumber plants in response to viral, bacterial and    fungal infections. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 28    (1986), pp. 161-169.-   29. J-P Metraux, P AhI-Goy, T Staub, J Speich, A Steinemann, J Ryals    and E Ward, Induced resistance in cucumber in response to    2,6-dichloroisonicotinic acid and pathogens. In: H Hennecke and DP S    Verma, Editors, Advances in Molecular Genetics of Plant-Microbe    Interactions, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991),    pp. 432-439.-   30. B M Moerschbacher, Plant peroxidases: involvement in response to    pathogens. In: C Penel, T h Gaspar and H Greppin, Editors, Plant    Peroxidases 1980-1990, Topics and Detailed Literature on Molecular,    Biochemical and Physiological Aspects, University of Geneva Press,    Geneva (1992), pp. 91-99.-   31. J F Murphy, G W Zehnder, D J Schuster, E J Sikora, J E Polston    and J W Kloepper, Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial mediated    protection in tomato against Tomato mottle virus. Plant Disease 84    (2000), pp. 779-784.-   32. A Navarro, P Manzanares, J V Carbonell and J M Sendra,    Determination of (1 leads to 3), (1 leads to 4)-β-glucanase activity    by a Calcofluor-flow injection analysis method. Journal of Cereal    Science 22 (1995), pp. 275-284.-   33. N Nelson, A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the    determination of glucose. Journal of Biological Chemistry 153    (1994), pp. 375-380.-   34. J M Neuhaus, S Flores, D Keefe, P Ahl-Goy and F Meins, Jr., The    function of vacuolar β-1,3-glucanase investigated by antisense    transformation. Susceptibility of transgenicNicotiana sylvestris    plants to Cercospora nicotianae infection. Plant Molecular Biology    19 (1992), pp. 803-813.-   35. Y Oka, Y Cohen and Y Spiegel, Local and systemic induced    resistance to the root-knot nematode in tomato by    DL-β-amino-n-butyric acid. Phytopathology 89 (1999), pp. 1138-1143.-   36. C M J Pieterse, S C M van Wees, E Hoffland, J A van Pelt and L C    van Loon, Systemic resistance in Arabidopsis induced by biocontrol    bacteria is independent of salicylic acid accumulation and    pathogenesis-related gene expression. The Plant Cell 8 (1996), pp.    1225-1237.-   37. C M J Pieterse, S C M van Wees, J A van Pelt, M Knoester, R    Laan, H Gerrits, P J Weisbeek and L C van Loon, A novel signaling    pathway controlling induced systemic resistance in arabidopsis. The    Plant Cell 10 (1998), pp. 1571-1580.-   38. Z K Punja, Genetic engineering of plants to enhance resistance    to fungal pathogens—a review of progress and future prospects.    Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 23 (2001), pp. 216-235.-   39. R A Reisfeld, U J Lewis and D E Williams, Disk electrophoresis    of basic proteins and peptides on polyacrylamide gels. Nature 195    (1962), pp. 281-283.-   40. A F Ross, Localized acquired resistance to plant virus infection    in hypersensitive hosts. Virology 14 (1961a), pp. 329-339.-   41. A F Ross, Systemic acquired resistance induced by localized    virus infection in plants. Virology 14 (1961b), pp. 340-358.-   42. J A Ryals, U H Neuenschwander, M G Willits, A Molina, H Y    Steiner and M D Hunt, Systemic acquired resistance. The Plant Cell 8    (1996), pp. 1809-1819.-   43. L Sequeira, Mechanisms of induced resistance in plants. Annual    Review of Microbiology 37 (1983), pp. 51-79.-   44. K P Smith, J Handelsman and R M Goodman, Modeling dose-response    relationships in biological control: partitioning host responses to    the pathogen and biocontrol agent. Phytopathology 87 (1997), pp.    720-729.-   45. M Somogyi, Notes on sugar determination. Journal of Biological    Chemistry 195 (1952), pp. 19-23.-   46. J P Stack, Biological management of postharvest diseases.    Phytopathology 92 (2002), p. S106.-   47. J C Sutton and G Peng, Manipulation and vectoring of biocontrol    organisms to manage foliage and fruit diseases in cropping systems.    Annual Review of Phytopathology 31 (1993), pp. 473-493.-   48. A Tally, M Oostendorp, K Lawton, T Staub and B Bassi, Commercial    development of elicitors of induced resistance to pathogens. In: A A    Agrawal, S Tuzun and E Bent, Editors, Induced Plant Defenses Against    Pathogens and Herbivores, APS Press, St Paul (1999), pp. 299-318.-   49. S Thamthiankul, S Suan-Ngay, S Tantimavanich and W Panbangred,    Chitinase from Bacillus thurigiensis subsp. Pakistani. Applied    Microbiology and Biotechnology 56 (2001), pp. 395-401.-   50. J Trudel and A Asselin, Detection of chitinase activity after    polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Analytical Biochemistry 178    (1989), pp. 362-366.-   51. L C van Loon, Occurrence and properties of plant    pathogenesis-related proteins. In: A A Agrawal, S Tuzun and S Bent,    Editors, Induced Plant Defenses Against Pathogens and Herbivores,    APS Press, St Paul (1999), pp. 1-19.-   52. L C van Loon and E A van Strien, The families of    pathogenesis-related proteins, their activities, and comparative    analysis of PR-1 type proteins. Physiological and Molecular Plant    Pathology 55 (1999), pp. 85-97.-   53. L C van Loon and C M J Pieterse, Biological control agents in    signaling resistance. In: S S Gnanamanickan, Editor, Biological    Control of Crop Diseases, Mercel Dekker, New York (2002), pp.    355-386.-   54. R van Peer, G J Niemann and B Schippers, Induced resistance and    phytoalexin accumulation in biological control of fusarium wilt of    carnation by Pseudomonasa sp. strain WCS417r. Phytopathology 81    (1991), pp. 728-734.-   55. L Velasquez. The Pathogenesis-related Protein Chitinase, and its    Role in the Systemic Acquired Resistance Phenotype in Cucumber    Plants (Cucumis sativus L.), Michigan State University (2002) p.    25-49.-   56. G Wei, J W Kloepper and S Tuzun, Induction of systemic    resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum orbiculare by select    strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Phytopathology 81    (1991), pp. 1508-1512. Full Text via CrossRef-   57. D M Weller, Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens in    the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 26    (1988), pp. 379-407.-   58. R F White, Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) induces resistance to    tobacco mosaic virus in tobacco. Virology 99 (1979), pp. 410-412.-   59. C E Windels, H A Lamey, D Hilde, J Widner and T Knudsen, A    Cercospora leaf spot model for sugar beet: In practice by an    industry. Plant Disease 82 (1998), pp. 716-726. Full Text via    CrossRef I View Record in Scopus|Cited By in Scopus (28)-   60. S Zhang, M S Reddy, N Kokalis-Burelle, L W Wells, S P    Nightengale and J W Kloepper, Lack of induced systemic resistance in    peanut to late leaf spot disease by plant growth-promoting    rhizobacteria and chemical elicitors. Plant Disease 85 (2001), pp.    879-884. Full Text via CrossRef|View Record in Scopus|Cited By in    Scopus (13)-   61. Q Zu, A Maher, S Masoud, R A Dixon and C Lamb, Enhanced    protection against fungal attack by constitutive coexpression of    chitinase and glucanase genes in transgenic tobacco. Bio Technology    12 (1994), pp. 807-812.-   62. Bargabus, R. L., Zidack, N. K., Sherwood, J. E., Jacobsen, B    J., 2003. Characterization of systemic resistance in sugar beet    elicited by a non-pathogenic, phyllosphere-colonizing Bacillus    inycoides, biological control agent. Physiological and molecular    plant pathology 61: 289-298.-   63. Bargabus, R. L., Zidack, N. K, Sherwood, I E., Jacobsen, B    J., 2004. Screening for the identification of potential biological    control agents that induce systemic acquired resistance in sugar    beet. Biological Control 30: 342-350.-   64. Bargabus-Larson, R. L. and B J. Jacobsen, 2007. Biocontrol    elicited systemic resistance in sugarbeet is salicylic acid    independent and npr1 dependent|Sugar Beet Res. 44: 17-33.-   65. Ewing, J. F., Janero, D. R., 1995. Microplate superoxide    dismutase assay employing a nonenzymatic superoxide generator.    Analytical Biochemistry 232: 243-248.-   66. Hung, T.-H., Chang, Y.-M., Sung, H.-Y., Chang, C.-T., 2002.    Purification and Characterization of hydrolase with chitinase and    chitosanase activity from commercial stem bromelain. Journal of    Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50: 4666-4673.-   67. Jacobsen, B.1. 2006. Biological control of plant diseases by    phyllosphere applied biological control agents. p. 133-148, In:    Microbial Ecology of Aerial Plant Surfaces, (Ed) M. Baily et al. CAB    International, Cambridge, Mass. 315 p.-   68. Jacobsen, B.1., C. Bradley, N. Zidack, T. Brenneman, 1 Miller, I    Washington, C. Melinger, B. Larson and a. Neher. 2007.    Commercialization of Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ as a broad    spectrum biological plant disease control agent. Phytopathology 97:    S50-   69. Pieterse, C. M.1., van Wees, S. C. M., van Pelt, 1A, Knoester,    M., Laan, R., Gerrits, H., Weisbeek, P.1., van Loon, L.c., 1998. A    novel signaling pathway controlling induced systemic resistance in    Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10: 1571-1580.-   70. Verhagen, B. W. M., van Loon, L.c., Pieterse, C. M.1., 2006.    Induced disease resistance in plants. pp 334-343. In: Floriculture,    ornamental and plant biotechnology, (Ed) Teixeira da Silva, Iowa    Global Science Books ltd, UK.-   71. Xiao, Z. Z., Storms, R., Tsang, A, 2005. Microplate-based    carboxymethylcellulose assay for endoglucanase activity. Analytical    Biochemistry 342: 176-178.-   72. Zietlow, a. T., M. R. Johnston, N. K. Zidack and B.1.    Jacobsen. 2004. Induced systemic resistance in cucumber to    Glomerella cingulata var. obiculare and Pseudomonas syringae pv.    lachrymans by Bacillus pumilis, isolate MSU 203-7. Phytopathology    94: S117.

We claim:
 1. A method of controlling one or more plant diseases in aplant or plant part, comprising applying a biocontrol agent comprisingBacillus mycoides isolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 orspores thereof to the plant or plant part, wherein the one or more plantdiseases are selected from the group consisting of pecan scab disease(Cladosporium caryigenum), Anthracnose disease (Glomerella cingulata),angular leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringe), early blight disease(Alternaria solani), white mold disease (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum),bacterial spot disease (Xanthomonas campestris), gray mold (Botrytiscinerea), root rotting disease (Pythium aphanidermatum), Powdery mildew(Podosphora xanthii), and diseases associated with plant viruses,wherein the diseases associated with plant viruses are selected from thegroup consisting of Potato Virus Y, cucumber mosaic virus, tobaccomosaic virus, and squash vein yellowing virus, wherein the plant isselected from the group consisting of sugar beet, banana, pecan,Solanaceae species, Cucurbitaceae species, ornamental plants,Arabidopsis thaliana, and wheat.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein theplant is a Solanaceae species selected from the group consisting ofpotato, tomato, pepper, and tobacco.
 3. The method of claim 1 whereinthe Cucurbitaceae species is selected from the group consisting ofCucumis melon, squash, cucumber, and watermelon; and the ornamentalplant is a Geranium species.
 4. A method for controlling one or moreplant diseases comprising applying to a plant a first and one or moresecond agents, wherein the first agent comprises a Bacillus mycoidesisolate BmJ having accession number NRRL B-30890 or spores thereof, andwherein the second agent is an insecticide, or a fungicide selected fromthe group consisting of pyraclostrobin, manganeseethylenebisdithiocarbamate, mancozeb, chlorothalonil, and boscalid. 5.The method of claim 4, wherein the second agent is applied at the sametime as the first agent.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein theapplication of the first and second agents are alternated.
 7. The methodof claim 4, wherein a plant virus transmitted by an insect vector iscontrolled.